Are DU'ers biased against Christians and Jews?

[eagler]

I do believe that it is important to stay engaged in discussion, but its becoming increasingly clear to me that Du participants refrain from commenting or criticizing other religions.

[demrabble]

1. Don't Forget Mormons!

You might also want to discuss whether DUers have any bias against Mormons.

[eagler]

10. very true

[trotsky]

14. And Scientologists. n/t

[demrabble]

31. How True

Scientologists are a group of people who are ridiculed for what they believe.

For a long time (and it may still be the case) the IRS hounded and harrassed them.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

101. What happens if a sizeable group of people decides to believe something that truly IS ridiculous?

Like, for instance, some evil alien overlord detonating a nuclear bomb and killing a bunch of aliens, who them become spirits and haunt us?

[unpossibles]

111. no, actually people in general make fun of scientology

because it makes no sense and was allegedly created as a drunken bet between Hubbard and Heinlein (and other writers).

Sorry. Not that I give much more credence to a world tree, a virgin birth, or a turtle carrying the world on its back. Again: sorry.

[YellingTuna]

117. true

True, I’m sorry but I can’t believe in a religion created by a science fiction book. That’s like believing Spock is god.

[unpossibles]

118. WHAT? Spock's NOT God?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[zbdent]

71. Or Poland!

Oh, wait ... wrong topic ...

;)

[wicket]

78. Damn - beat me to it!

:D

[notadmblnd]

2. if you go to the religion forum...

you'll probably get more than of your fill of religion there.

[Tormenta]

108. Huh?

This is the Religion/Theology forum. I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone, though.

[charlie]

110. Contentious topics

get whisked to their respective forums when posted in General Discussion. Gun battles to the Gun Dungeon, Israel to I/P, 911 to 911, and this one to the R/T forum. You're reading a reply posted when this was still in GD.

[Buzz Clik]

3. Some DUers are biased against everything that has any whiff of religion.

No biggie. We have folks of all kinds here.

[redqueen]

4. DUers are not a homogenous entity.

There are a wide variety of opinions and attitudes about religions of all kinds reflected here.

[HereSince1628]

12. Yes, there are at least two sides to this on DU

Just like the nation. We shouldn't expect it to be otherwise. We may not always disagree but we always care.

[unpossibles]

5. I think it would be more accurate to say that those religions get "attacked" more

because they are in the majority. When I meet a Fundamentalist Wiccan/Buddhist/Muslim who wants to force all of America to follow their rules, I will complain about them too.

EDIT:
to be fair, I have never noticed any fundamentalist Jews doing this either, so ....

[Dervill Crow]

86. Jews are a pretty exclusive lot.

I wanted to convert to Judaism and because my husband is Catholic the local rabbis wouldn't have me. I thought it was just the usual "turn them away three times," but it finally sunk in that they wouldn't convert me.

I was working my way back from Christianity to older religions. I ended up as a Celtic pagan, which is admittedly reconstructionist.

[unpossibles]

88. yes, but exclusive is better than "on a mission" in my mind

at least here. I don't know. Frankly I don't want any religion to have the ear of the State.

[Dervill Crow]

103. I agree wholeheartedly! n/t

[Whoa_Nelly]

6. What are you talking about?

Your post is somewhat unclear and confusing. Can you explain/expand on your viewpoint a little more? :shrug:

[Tormenta]

107. I'm glad I'm not the only one who's confused.

I have no idea what the OP is asking.

[babylonsister]

7. I think the term 'respectful' is better. nt

[Xenotime]

84. DU allows religion to be discussed...

Isn't that enough?

[babylonsister]

92. Excuse me? The OP inferred people were biased; I prefer 'respectful'.

I'm not criticizing the discussions one way or the other as I don't get involved in them.

[htuttle]

8. As soon as a Buddhist threatens my daughter's right to choose, I'll be right on that

And while I can't remember the last time I was accused of being a heretic by a Zoroastrian, don't worry -- I take NO SHIT from Zoroastrians!

:eyes:

[originalpckelly]

9. Oh, I criticize any idiotic belief system not supported by evidence...

on the other hand, the place where valid criticism becomes bigotry is where there is no evidence to back up the criticism.

One case would be the Mitt Romney story, I thought that bullshit about bringing up his family's polygamist past was uncalled for, because it is not about what Mitt Romney believes and it's a plea to bigotry against Mormons. I might criticize Romney (or even make fun of him) for something he actually believes, but not for something he doesn't.

[Warpy]

19. I tend to keep such criticism to myself

unless somebody gets in my face and orders me to comply with their belief in whatever and threatens to change laws to force me to do so. They usually don't like the result.

There is nothing that looks stupider than somebody else's religion, even among various sets of believers. Tact becomes essential if we don't want to engage in fistfights every time we go to a social event.

[Deep13]

26. That is a mistake.

Fundies count on skeptics keeping their opions to themselves. The reason fundamentalists are tolerated is because moderates create a cultural background that tolerates fundamentalists and even makes them seem admirable.

[Warpy]

39. Fundies hear about it, all right

because no fundy can resist testifying at all hours of the day, not matter what the social situation may be. Shoot, I can see them yelling bible verses and talking in tongues if somebody made the mistake of inviting them to a bar mitzvah.

That was rather my point.

[Norquist Nemesis]

11. Some are biased for, some are biased against but neither equates

to 'refraining from commenting or criticizing other religions' due to a bias, IMO. Just seems to me that you're painting with a broad brush.

[Double T]

13. NO bias.................

separation of church and state; religion and politics; is paramount.

[bullimiami]

15. ive never felt any bias. whats the basis of you assertion?

i think you might be confusing political and religious issues.
when religious groups embrace political doctrines it is important to remember that there are 2 seperate components.

[Caoimhe]

16. Not buying it

[Marrah_G]

17. I really don't think DU is against religion per se

But I do think that we have been beaten nearly to death by the crap spewing from the religious right. After a decade of this bullshit staying logical and open-minded gets more difficult. So, in my opinion, it isn't that the majority are anti-religion, they are just fed up with the fundies of ALL religions.

[eagler]

23. Ishould have said SOME DU'ers. The question was thrown out

there simply for discussion,not in anger. It's meant to encourage thought on the matter.

[Marrah_G]

35. I think it is a good topic

And I really do believe most of the reaction seen is due to the constant barage of idiocracy coming from the fudies. It wears down peoples tolerance.

It's like having a sunburn. Once you have one even the slightest brush against your skin is enough to make you curse.

[leftofthedial]

18. no,

but don't come around here with your Zoroastrianism or you'll get your ass kicked.

[Deep13]

22. My animistic ancestor spirits are awesome animistic ancestor spirits!

[Deep13]

20. "...commenting or criticizing other religions."

Sorry, these are relevant topics and are as open to criticism as politics, art, science or anything else. There is no rational reason to put a wall around religion and say all topics are fair game except this one.

It is not fair to lump all DUers into a homogenious group any more than it is fair to do the same for Christians or Jews. All individuals are, well, individuals.

I will say that I am not biased against Christian or Jewish persons per se, but I am extremely skeptical of the value of their religions. I am biased against some specific Christians based on their actions.

[eagler]

24. Fair answer

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain

[eagler]

25. Would Islam be a sacred cow?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Institutions of any kind are fair game.

[Deep13]

32. Nope. The OP only spoke of Christianity and Judaism.

None of them is off limits because no intellectual subject is off limits.

I'm surprised you did not go with Hinduism with your sacred cow reference. :D

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

100. If this forum was geared towards, let's say, Pakistani liberals... yes.

As it is, no.

[Donovan61]

27. Bias?

I don't really see DU as biased. As someone already pointed out, a lot of viewpoints are expressed here. Unlike the freepers, DUers are a lot more honest about their feelings about religious beliefs. I suspect a lot of wingnuts are not really religious. They merely claim to be religious as a way to gain power. Check out John Dean's excellent book "Conservatives Without Conscience" for a better explanation than I am capable of giving here. Although I am a practicing Christian, I feel much more kinship with a person who believes as I do about economic and social justice than with some ignorant, self-righteous, Bible-thumping homophobe.

[eagler]

29. Me too

[NoodleyAppendage]

28. I'm biased against belief in mythological cloud beings and anti-reason stupidity.

Too much in this world is wrought with the death and destruction brought about by the clashes of religious ideology. If I'm biased against a belief system that promulgates sorrow and problems for humanity, then so be it.

J

[Deep13]

34. Get off the fence and tell us what you REALLY think.

:spray:

[dysfunctional press]

45. same here. religion has been the bane of mankind.

i often wonder what life on an enlightened planet must be like...

[unpossibles]

112. it would probably be awesome...

...until humans got there.


just kidding. sorta.

[Jacobin]

33. Wha?

I must refrain from criticizing the people running around the world fighting each other and dragging me into it about which flying spaghetti monster is the real spaghetti monster?

I think not.

[jobycom]

36. Some. There are assholes everywhere.

Oddly, as an atheist, I rarely encounter any criticisms of my lack of religion here, yet there are a couple of atheists who can't resist the urge to bash other people's religion whenever it is brought up. These are a minority, but their comments sting, nonetheless.

It's odd, too. Similar to the Tim Hardaway comments, you'd expect that atheists, who are legally discriminated against and are frequently harrassed for their religion, would be absolutely the last people to attack someone else's religion. Sadly, not always true, although I do believe most are not like that. And it must be said that I've NEVER encountered a religious DUer who attacked my atheism or attacked me for atheism. It may have happened to others, I can't say. But not to me.

And I'll add, since I'm concerned that someone may misunderstand me, that I'm not saying religion isn't a fair topic of discussion, or that religious people or religious attitudes can never be debated. I'm saying that blatant, often gratuitous, attacks on a person or a religion for the simple sake of doing it are bad. For instance, the people that have to throw a "Christianity is superstition" post into any discussion that nominally touches on Christianity. I'm not talking about people discussing, for instance, the historical evidence on whether Jesus existed, or historical problems with certain religious groups (Catholic position on abortion, for instance, or the American protestant position of gay marriage).

Just my thoughts.

[Deep13]

41. Religion is different from race, sexual orientation or gender.

Race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, gender and religious BACKGROUND are all integral parts of a person. A person cannot control any of them and, consequently, all of these matters are morally and intellectually nuetral. Religion that one practices is an opinion on a factual assertion. There either is only one God with Mohammed as his sole prophet or there is not. Both opinons cannot be right. Either Christ performed miracles or he did not.

I appreciate that socially, religion is a touchy subject. Nevertheless, there is no reason why that one realm of opinion should be walled-off from discussion. Whether or not any religion paints a true picture of the world is a fundamentally important question for the future of humanity. We simply do not have the luxy of sitting back and saying well, I respect your faith. I do not respect it. Faith is the abandonment of the rational in favor of wishful thinking and social acceptance. It is both intellectually lazy and cowardly. Further, a large part of the suffering in the world is directly caused by religion and differences of opinion on religion (often on extremely minute points.)

I may very well be an asshole (that is for others to judge), but I resent being called a bigot because I refuse to defer to relious beliefs. When one person believes in something false, it is delusion. When millions do it, it is religion.

[dogday]

62. When people have faith, it is inside of them

How do you explain that? I mean it is real to them, as real as any thought or feeling anyone else has. Why would you call that not real... Whether you think a God or a deity is real, the feelings people receive from their experience is very real.

Me, I personally have found that I am going to respect all groups, religions, sexual affiliations the same. I promise not to verbally or physically abuse anyone because of their beliefs, whether in God or UFOs...

There are certain things I don't understand about others, but damn I do respect their right to say this is who I am and I deserve respect.

[More Than A Feeling]

68. That faith makes claims about the nature of the world.

And so you can talk about those claims, and whether or not they are true.

To give you a hypothetical, I feel that Pat Robertson is actually a robot come from the future to destroy us all, and that scares me quite a bit. But the fear I feel doesn't actually make it true that he is a robot.

Also, you said, "but damn I do respect their right to say this is who I am and I deserve respect." That's fine, but then you have to ask the question, "is it really a good idea to bind your identity in that way to religious ideas?" Religious ideas aren't inherent in a person the way sex, features that society uses to determine race, or sexual orientation are. So if you bind your identity, doesn't that mean you are much more likely to be offended when someone criticizes those ideas, because you will take it as criticism of yourself.

[dogday]

69. I would rather someone be critical of me than to

be critical of others..

[Deep13]

70. Let's be clear on what we mean by "real."

The belief may be a real belief in that the believer actually believes that such-and-such is true. The feeling or preception or subjective experience may be real. Nevertheless, that is quite different than saying that the experience was caused by God. There are many many reasons to think that religious experiences are not caused by anything divine and many authors more knowledgeable on the subject have written at legth about it. Richard Dawkin's book The God Delusion is just one example. The fact that one subjectively believes something has no bearing on whether that something is real or not. An opinion about a proposed fact is very different than an opinion about something purely subjective. One may reasonably disagree with value judgements (whether something is good or bad) or about questions of taste. There are no right answers to such matters. Nevertheless, the existence or non existence of supernatural divinity is a factual question. God either does or does not exist.

Right now we cannot rule out the idea that God somehow set the universe in motion with the big bang and left it alone thereafter. Still, there is no reason beyond wishful thinking to suppose it did happen that way. We do know that the subsequent evolution of the universe is based solely on the physical conditions that came into being in the moments following the big bang. We also know for certain sure that nothing divine had any part in the production or evolution of life on Earth. Indeed, modern plants and animals show a decided lack of intelligent design. Once all aspects of human behavior and the natural universe were ascribed directly to divine intervention. Now it has been reduced to allegory in the public mind and science has pushed God further and further into an increasingly remote closet. There is no reason to suppose that the shrinking gaps in our knowledge will not continue and the unexplained mysteries of the universe will be removed from possible divine influence. Evolution itself with the elimination of Adam and Eve undermines the very premise of Christianity. Without literal original sin, there is nothing for a redeemer to do. The Fundies know this, hence their hostility to evolution.

Any God complex enought to create a universe explains nothing, because it begs the question of who created him? There is no god. The proof, frankly, is everywhere.

[dogday]

72. I am not disputing or discussing the reality of God

I am discussing the reality of what people feel on the inside, as a person. It becomes a part of them and they believe in this. Now whether you do, or I do is not the question, do they? That is the question... Is there some kind of change within them because of what they believe? Did they change for the better? What do they feel on the inside? Why do they feel that way?

I believe it is a deeply felt concept with many, not as fundies, but as people who want to be good people...

[Deep13]

80. We appear to be in agreement, then.

I also think religion or the lack thereof is generally irrelevant to whether a person is good or evil. This, of course, contradicts claims of religious advocates that morality comes from God.

[Boojatta]

105. Even the smallest substantive flaw ...

(as opposed to typographical or otherwise superficial flaw) in an argument makes it conceivable that the argument is of no value as support for some claim.

One may reasonably disagree with value judgments (whether something is good or bad) or about questions of taste. There are no right answers to such matters.

Why do you mention both ethics and aesthetics as though they are comparable? Arrest and torture of people on the grounds that they are color blind is recognized by reasonable people as unethical. In fact, you will probably have to search thoroughly through historical records to find any evidence that such a bizarre and unethical practice has ever been the official policy of any government.

Right now we cannot rule out the idea that God somehow set the universe in motion with the big bang and left it alone thereafter. Still, there is no reason beyond wishful thinking to suppose it did happen that way.

Why do you consider that to be wishful thinking? Are you assuming that the same God might reward or punish people after death? Consider, for example, the point of view of someone who participated in genocidal acts and is trying to evade arrest and trial. For such a person, the assumption that there will definitely be no reckoning and no justice beyond human justice might itself be wishful thinking.

We do know that the subsequent evolution of the universe is based solely on the physical conditions that came into being in the moments following the big bang.

Your claim is unclear. Are you saying that the initial conditions of the universe are known and it has been confirmed that everything in the universe is as it should be if the currently accepted laws of physics are the only thing that has ever influenced events in the universe?

Here's an analogy. Suppose you play chess via the internet against a chess-playing program. Would you be able to know for certain, just from the moves made by your opponent, that no human being replaced just one move that the program would have made against you with a move chosen by that human being?

Any God complex enough to create a universe explains nothing, because it begs the question of who created him?

I agree that if anything is explained by the hypothesis of the existence of God, then it is either something well hidden or some kind of extremely rare event. However, the allegation that the hypothesis commits a question begging fallacy strikes me as unconvincing. Had you lived during the time of Sir Isaac Newton and heard someone proclaim that universal gravitation explains nothing because it begs the question of what produces the gravitation, then how do you think you would have responded?

There is no god. The proof, frankly, is everywhere.

You've settled one long-standing controversy to your own satisfaction. Now how about settling something for which there are objective standards?

Can every even number greater than 2 be expressed as a sum of the form p+q where p and q are prime numbers? (Note that, in accordance with a very general convention, the use of distinct letters p and q does not imply that p is unequal to q.)

Beware: numbers can be subtle. For example, see this:
An observed regularity in the nature of whole numbers

[unpossibles]

116. one thing, RE: gravity

I can witness gravity, even if I do not understand the mechanics. I cannot witness God's existence, nor can I explain the mechanics of why a God would be necessary. Not quite the same analogy.

Any God complex enough to create a universe explains nothing, because it begs the question of who created him?

I agree that if anything is explained by the hypothesis of the existence of God, then it is either something well hidden or some kind of extremely rare event. However, the allegation that the hypothesis commits a question begging fallacy strikes me as unconvincing. Had you lived during the time of Sir Isaac Newton and heard someone proclaim that universal gravitation explains nothing because it begs the question of what produces the gravitation, then how do you think you would have responded?

[Boojatta]

119. Please answer the following question:

Had you lived during the time of Sir Isaac Newton and heard someone proclaim that universal gravitation explains nothing because it begs the question of what produces the gravitation, then how do you think you would have responded?

Also, note what I responded to. I wasn't responding to a statement about unobservability God. That's your contribution to the discussion. Perhaps you wish to combine the unobservability of God and the allegation that there is a question-begging fallacy to formulate some reasoning to support some conclusion?

[jobycom]

63. There's way too much here to comment on

Just a couple of the main places I disagree: If we proved that some people can choice their sexual orientation, would you then agree with fundies that it's okay to deny them rights and to badmouth them around here? That's the gist of your first paragraph--that you should be able to bash religion because beliefs are a choice (I disagree with that, for the record--I don't think people really choose what they believe, although I don't believe everyone really admits to themselves what they believe).

I don't care if all religious assertions can be right, or if none can be right. A person who believes their god is the only god are quite welcome to that belief, just as I believe there is no god.

I didn't say that religion should be walled off from discussion. Quite the opposite. I even said that I anticipated someone would raise that objection, and answered it first.

"Whether or not any religion paints a true picture of the world is a fundamentally important question for the future of humanity." That's silly. It's only important to the people who hold that view, and it only becomes important to me when someone tries to force me to believe as they do. That includes atheists who try to force religious folk to believe as they do.

Faith--you have faith that your belief is right. I'm sure you can (and might) raise a number of reasons why you believe you are right and they are wrong, and I'm equally sure that they can do the same back at you. Ultimately, it's all faith. If there were some way to prove or disprove God's existence, it would have been done already. And it hasn't, except in the minds of the faithful (of whichever religion or lack thereof they believe in).

And I didn't call you a bigot for refusing to defer to religious beliefs. I implied (and will state plainly so we don't have to squabble over the word) that a person is a bigot for insulting other peole for their religious beliefs, or insulting their religion. I stand by that, and re-emphasize it. And I re-emphasize my other point--that for an atheist to condemn a religious person for their faith is hypocritical in the extreme, considering how often we are blamed for our faith (You may try to argue that it is not faith but "lack of faith," but that's semantics. The result is the same. And anyway, I don't just lack faith in gods, I actively disbelieve in them. So for me it's not a lack of faith.).

[Deep13]

79. Okay, I knew this was coming, so here is the response.

Just a couple of the main places I disagree: If we proved that some people can choice their sexual orientation, would you then agree with fundies that it's okay to deny them rights and to badmouth them around here? That's the gist of your first paragraph--that you should be able to bash religion because beliefs are a choice (I disagree with that, for the record--I don't think people really choose what they believe, although I don't believe everyone really admits to themselves what they believe).

As a matter of policy, no. There is no objective reason to discriminate against gays even if somehow they choose it, which they do not. Still, what all my examples have in common is that they are not chosen, but are built-in parts of the person's identity. I think that puts the matter on a different footing as a choice. It is not that belief is a choice: Saudis don't choose to be Muslims, they are required to be by law. Rather it is an assertion about the facts of the world which are either right or wrong. "Bash" is your word, by the way. I'm not "Bashing" anything. I'm criticizing in the academic sense of the word.

I don't care if all religious assertions can be right, or if none can be right. A person who believes their god is the only god are quite welcome to that belief, just as I believe there is no god.

I do not dispute that the legal right to believe as one chooses is absolute, or at least it ought to be. I'm not talking about legal rights. I'm talking about the factual merit of religious assertions. Widespread religious beliefs have consequences and they are usually bad consequences. It matters if people choose to abandon reality in favor of irrational beliefs. Subjective belief is one thing, but people tend to act on those beliefs. If they didn't, Al Gore would be president, no one would have attacked us on 9/11 for Allah and we would be at peace.

"Whether or not any religion paints a true picture of the world is a fundamentally important question for the future of humanity." That's silly. It's only important to the people who hold that view, and it only becomes important to me when someone tries to force me to believe as they do. That includes atheists who try to force religious folk to believe as they do.

Atheism is not a belief. It is a decision to follow rationality and evidence rather than subjective belief. Again, people act on beliefs. Suppose a large part of the population believes that a person's essence is in a soul that enters the body at conception. Can you see any practical consequences of that? Suppose many people believe that only his or her denomination is the correct one. Further, those who fail to accept that fact are dammed and in some way not really human. Is there any practical consequence to that? Would people in N. Ireland have had so many problems if England and Ireland subscribed to the same variety of Christianity? Would women be treated like such shit in Muslim countries if one reading of Islam did not support it? Would an atheist have ever blown-up those big Buddahs in Afghanistan? What about sacked mosques or cathedrals in any number of the holy wars in the Middle East?

Faith--you have faith that your belief is right. I'm sure you can (and might) raise a number of reasons why you believe you are right and they are wrong, and I'm equally sure that they can do the same back at you. Ultimately, it's all faith. If there were some way to prove or disprove God's existence, it would have been done already. And it hasn't, except in the minds of the faithful (of whichever religion or lack thereof they believe in).

That's a nice, agreeable sentiment, but it is factually wrong. The existence or nonexistence of God is a factual question. In all practical matters, God has been disproven to the point that if he/she/they/it exists at all, it is in such a remote and marginal way as to render his existence irrelevant to anything. Plus the evidence of the functions of the human mind and history pretty much prove that divinity is a concept we made up in the beginning. All human nature and indeed all life can be explained purely in evolutionary terms. By definition, evolution is nondirected. The existence of a God that acts like God would have made the universe and especially life look very different than it does. Further, God explains nothing. A God complex enough to create a universe has to be more complex than the universe. Where the hell did he come from? As far as the specific mythologies of the world, none of it is true beyond a few scraps of possible historical touchstones. The truth is we all all atheistic to Zeus, Thor, Ahmen-rah etc. Atheists simply remove one more god from the pantheon.

...that for an atheist to condemn a religious person for their faith is hypocritical in the extreme, considering how often we are blamed for our faith (You may try to argue that it is not faith but "lack of faith," but that's semantics. The result is the same. And anyway, I don't just lack faith in gods, I actively disbelieve in them. So for me it's not a lack of faith.)

First, it is not semantics, it is a fundamental distinction. Religions are all different from each other in the details, but they all share faith in the supernatural. Atheism and to some degree agnosticism are alone in rejecting faith as a virtue and embracing doubt. Science and skepticism and inquiry may not always produce the right result, but they are the only thing that ever has. My "faith" comes from past success. What is a priest's excuse?

Second, hypocrisy is acting in condradiction to ones stated morals or ethics. For example, "support our troops" while letting the military hospital crumble around them. My morals and ethics place a value on knowledge and a condemnation on faith. I am only being hypocritical, therefore, when I hold back for social reasons. I want to spell something out since the point seems to have been missed. First, a respect religious people as much as I respect nonreligious people. One has to look at the person, not the group. I respect the right to ones beliefs as an absolute. It is the beliefs themselves that I do not respect.

[unpossibles]

113. perhaps because atheists ARE legally discriminated against

and frequently harrassed is WHY they attack religion. Kind of an "I'VE HAD ENOUGH" thing, and I would bet it depends on where you live. NYC, probably not a big deal or even noticed. Topeka? Good luck.

[xultar]

37. Some Duers appear to have no respect for others beliefs and in the process

of stating their own beliefs they feel it is o.k. to bash.

I don't get that type of stuff. Freepers play that game.

[goclark]

42. xultar, you are always on target

A Progressive Board composed of DEMOCRATS should value the freedom of religion.

I am sick and tired of people putting my religion down.

I do not ask anyone to be a Christian!

The broad brush that is used is not productive in my view.


I would never bash people that are from other religions.
Nor do I bash Atheists.
Worship or not worship who/what you please is my thinking.

I'm sure when it it time to get the vote of the Christians, DU'ers will be around here begging for VOTES for DEMOCRATS.

Bet not one person will tell me to refuse to get my friends at Church to vote!

No Democrats complained when MLK spoke in Black Churches and saw that mountain top!

No one complains when Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al bring in that Black Vote EVERY TIME! Those are Christian votes they are bringing to the table!


We can be honest without slamming someone to the ground.

[Goblinmonger]

60. So you value freedom of religion

but not freedom of speech? People shouldn't be able to talk poorly of your religion why exactly?

[goclark]

76. I certainly value Freedom of Speech

You have the right to talk anyway you want to about what ever you want to ~ that is your choice.

I don't have to share your views,however, I do appreciate posters that are not "BASHERS." There is a huge difference between personal bashing and discussing points of views.

I just feel that the level of mean spirited comments,especially when the comments are directed at a fellow member is insensitive.

I respect your right to speak but I do not have to Value the tone of what is said to a so called "friend" at DU.

PS/ I must say that the way that you phrased your post was not a put down but. IMO, a push for deeper understanding. I have no problem with seeking to understand but I am sensitive to the difference.

[Deep13]

43. Facts are facts regardless of belief.

As a practical matter, I don't make a point of trying to convert people to atheism. That is not out of any moral consideration, but rather the practical matter of generating hostility that causes people to avoid me and did in their heels on the subject matter. Still, religious beliefs are assertions on factual matters. Something either exists or it does not. An religious argument is as susceptible to criticism as an argument concerning politics, art, science or anything else.

[ProfessorGAC]

44. Others Merely Have No Interest Either Way

I don't care at all who believes in what. So, when they attempt to tell me, i admit i glaze over. I don't bash. But, i sure don't care.
The Professor

[magellan]

38. I'm biased against anyone who tries to impose their agenda/belief system on me

...without my approval.

:shrug:

[stillcool]

40. I have a clear bias..

towards the Catholic Church, and because of my personal life experience have no use for organized religion. That said, what I choose to believe is none of anyone's business, and what anyone else believes is of no interest to me, unless said people attempt to restrict my choices because of their personal belief. Should witch-burning become in vogue again, I suspect I'd be a likely candidate.

[Deep13]

46. "Should witch-burning become in vogue again..."

I think that is something on which most, if not all, of us will agree. Whatever the merits of a particular religion or of religion in general, the legal right to ones religious views are absolute.

[Skidmore]

47. I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian home. As an adult,

I've been fascinated by the common themes of all religious traditions and do not practice any of them. I have no bias against any religion, only those practitioners of whatever creed who insist that everyone on the planet must acknowledge a divinely given mandate by whatever deity they worship to dictate to others how to live their lives. Let us all be honest, great injustices have been committed throughout history by those who would characterize themselves as knowing the mind and will of God. Now if this makes me biased against Christians and Jews in your eyes, then I'm proudly biased. I would hope that mankind by now has progressed beyond the need to cling to the narrow definition of humanity offered by anyone creed to understand that all religions address the need to understand ourselves and a universe in which we need to live. Because I frequent DU, that may also lend credence to an argument that I may be one of those "biased against Christians and Jews."

[shadowknows69]

48. He don't know me very well do he?

I would be happy to criticize nearly any aspect of the history of the christian church if you'd like. The Jews never bothered me much. They were mostly an oppressed people. Christianity has a better record of being the oppressor.

[Bjornsdotter]

49. When someone's religious beliefs

.....are tap dancing on my civil rights, someone is going to hear from me....loudly.

Cheers

[Hunky Dunky]

50. I don't necessarily think so

But I do wish there were more bashing of fundamentalist Islam, because I feel that it is the most dangerous of today's fundamentalist religions.

[Skidmore]

51. Fundamentilst Islam does not actively orchestrate to step on civil rights in this nation,

fundamentalist Christianity does. I don't think that makes it any less dangerous as a fundamentalist religion to Americans.

[Hunky Dunky]

52. No, but there are other criteria than civil rights

Fundamenalist Islam is definitely the most violent of all fundamnetalist religions. I can't think of any other large religion today that espouses violence. To that extent, they are definitely the most dangerous religiom, certainly on a global level. It is one fucked up belief system for sure!

[Skidmore]

56. Do you expect hordes of unshaven Moslems waving scimitars

to pop over the next hill shouting "God is great?" Christianity isn't any less a "fucked up belief system" than Islam, as you would castigate it. Ask the Irish. How about all the nations of the world which were colonized because it was part of the "white man's burden" to bring the savages to Christianity. Speak to those civilizations hammered by the Crusades in the Middle Ages. Address slavery practiced in our own nation because it was one groups God-given right to subjugate and exploit another race. Now talk to me about "fucked up belief systems."

[Hunky Dunky]

74. It kinda already happened

Except that they went out of their way to shave. They popped into a couple of buildings in an airplane in NYC and probably shouted "god is Great" as they took about 3000 innocent lives on purpose.

[Skidmore]

82. I take it that a fanatic like Eric Rudolph, who sould set off a

bomb in an major American city during the Olympics, does not concern you.

Interesting.

[Hunky Dunky]

93. Sure it does.

Why wouldn't it? But, am I not allowed to bash fundamentalist Islam separately and distinctly for being a really fucked up violent religion? I'm not sure what your point is.

You seem to be upset that I am very anti-fundamentalist Islam. Why? Aren't you against this very dangerous fundamentalist religion too?

As far as I know, Eric Rudolph was not actively schooled by his religion to commit violence. Fundamentalist Islam is the only religion that I know of that actively teaches it's adherents to be violent.

[Skidmore]

94. Someone actively school Rudolph in his fanaticism. He didn't

just happen to make up that belief system of his whole cloth.

I have no use for fundamentalism of any stripe. I have less patience with the myopia that tends to view Islamic fundamentalism as somehow being more virulent than the fanaticism in the Christian and Jewish systems, and believe me, there are fanatics in these two faiths that could give any fundamentalist Moslem a run for his money.

I also know that most Moslems do not believe or practice fundamentalism. I suggest you learn a little more about Islam than what you hear on teevee.

[Hunky Dunky]

96. I agree that all fundamentalism is bad

And I agree that most Muslims and Christians and Jews are not fundamentalists. I part from agreement with you after that. Fundamental Islam is the most wicked and violent and dangerous of all fundamental religions. I don't really need to take you up on the classic "educate youself" snub, as I know all I need to know about fundamentalism to form a lucid, cogent opinion.

[LeftishBrit]

57. It does step on them in several other countries, however

Theocracy of any sort is bad.

[Skidmore]

58. Because it does, does it follow that we are responsible for

recreating our own system in those nations as well?

[LeftishBrit]

59. No. Imperialism is also bad.

[Skidmore]

61. Imperialism and religious fervor often are inseparable.

[LeftishBrit]

55. All fundamentalist religions are dangerous.

I do think that fundamentalist Islam is CURRENTLY more dangerous than most, because there are more explicitly theocratic Moslem governments. Organize an explicitly theocratic Christian government, and that will also be dangerous - both through the inherent oppressiveness of theocracy, and because conflicts between Catholics and Protestants offer just as ripe pickings for civil strife and terrorism as conflicts between Sunnis and Shiites.

This is not just an abstract analogy; it is based on much of British history, especially in the 16th and 17th centuries. Northern Ireland hasn't fully recovered from the disastrous effects, to this day.

[helderheid]

53. Just the Jewish Christians. And maybe the Christian Jews.

[LeftishBrit]

54. I've seen criticism of Moslems too; and other religions tend not to come up, because they are not

so linked to the political issues.

To reply: yes, I have come across some rather extreme anti-religion remarks on occasion; and very occasionally, frank anti-semitism (and I don't mean criticisms of Israeli policies - I criticize them too). But this is a huge board, and I haven't noticed that there is any one consistent view, for or against religion.

FWIW, I'm an atheist, but I'm very happy with anyone else practicing whatever religion they choose. I would not wish any religion, or indeed atheism, to be imposed on a country, directly or indirectly; and find such groups as 'Focus on the Family' shocking. I also oppose any discrimination against religious people, or attempt to impose one faith over others.

[LaPera]

64. Only the ones that don't taste very good.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. What? First off, there's like 100,000 "DU Participants"

Secondly, I don't know where you've been hanging out. THIS DU participant doesn't give the fundamentalist whackjobs of ANY religion a free pass.

[More Than A Feeling]

66. I haven't seen a lot of Jewish bias, but why wouldn't Christianity get the majority of criticism

since it is the majority religion in this country, and it is the religion that is the most familiar to many of us, and the one we have the most experience with.

If most DUers were from Indonesia, Islam would probably get most of the critique.

[eagler]

81. that would most likely get them killed

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

102. Yeah, the West was lucky.

We curbed down OUR Talibans (aka the Inquisition and their Protestant less-centralized equivalents) with the Enlightenment.

Not that they wouldn't like to return to the good ol' times. As they say, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

[Sapere aude]

67. No more than religions are biased against DU. It's ok to hold a negative view of religion.

There is nothing "sacred" about religion. There are positive and negative aspects of religion and I don't feel there is anything wrong about being biased against negative religious aspects.

[mmonk]

73. Based on?

In other words, how did you come about that question?

[cgrindley]

75. More anti-semitic than anti-christian

and very few people come out with anything negative to say about Islam.

Personally, I can't stand any religion, although a really watery christianity (if you cut all the supernatural stuff out and delete everything written by Paul) is probably the least offensive. Polytheist religions are probably the most asinine next to truly idiotic beliefs such as $cientology.

I wouldn't go as far as Dawkins with a total hatred of all religions, probably because I'm not terribly opposed to Neoplatonic Deism, but I'm sure that if I sat down with Dawkins for any length of time, he might be able to change my mind.

I really do dislike fundamental christianity and all types of islam.

[mmonk]

77. Anti-semitic based on?

Does your take concerning Islam and DU stem from the fact that many posts are just skeptical of the administration's and fundamentalist's desire to accent religious conflict for foreign policy reasons? Sure, some may be anti-semitic (can't talk for everybody here), but as a general theme? Don't really see it.

[cgrindley]

87. Based on really extreme opposition

to everything associated with Israel. Sure it's always couched in the whole "I'm not blaming Jews, just Zionists," language, but it nevertheless rings hollow after the fifty millionth post that irrationally sides with the Palestinians.

According to a lot of people here, whatever Israel does is wrong and Hamas and Hezbollah are charitable organizations dedicated to peace.

Surely you remember this summer's shitstorms?

[mmonk]

95. You are attributing that in general terms to DU?

[cgrindley]

97. Which part?

Do you remember the vast threads of navel gazing?

A whole lot of people saw no fault with Hezbollah or Hamas, continuously conflated the two conflicts, dismissed Israel's right to exist, and so on... but it was usually filtered through anti-zionist sentiments, which, in my opinion, usually just serve to mask a more insidious anti-semitism.

Personally, I think that it's entirely possible to be a progressive liberal and support Israel's right to exist. I've never understood the PLO's support base in the US, never understood how anyone could support either Hamas or Hezbollah. All three are organizations that are opposed to nearly every single thing that we as progressive liberals and democrats support. You want NeoCon religious nonsense and intollerance? Try Hamas on for size. They're a thousand times worse than Cheney and he actually is the antichrist.

I put it all down to anti-semitism as that is the most simple explanation. Nothing else really makes sense.

[mmonk]

98. I was speaking of anti-semitism.

I don't think of DU in that much of a narrowly defined term. If it was in general, I wouldn't be here. Does antisemitism occasionally show itself here? Yes, much like other places in our society. I also think there is a large diversity of opinion here. There are religious people here, atheists here, Jewish people here, Catholics here, Muslims here, evangeligicals here, etc. There's probably anti all those particular postions here as well. Places like this are not as uniform in thought as conservative boards. I guess the key is to try and monitor bigotry and remove it when possible.

[cgrindley]

99. There is tremendous diversity here

but a lot of the time it doesn't really show its face. Take the Edwards house debacle. The pro-Edwards people were pretty quick to stifle debate on that one by breaking out the Republican troll accusation. Similarly, there are the occasional thread--and there was one this weekend--that actually suggested that dissent from some sort of rigid hivemind somehow indicated that posters were paid operatives. The monitoring process works pretty well and I have to hand it to the mods for keeping a tight reign on things during the whole Lebanon debacle. They did a good job.

I do agree with you. This board is a lot more diverse than other places, but there is a strong base of people who wish that it was not. We progressives should keep in mind that there is greater variety in our beliefs than might otherwise be expected.

I guess an additional problem is that people are a little more reluctant here to call one another on outright idiocy. There's a belief, and I don't know where it came from, that tolerance of another person's right to have an opinion somehow equals respect for the opinion itself. Perhaps that stops some people from speaking out.

[rockymountaindem]

115. The way things are going it looks like there's going to be part II this summer

Though I pray it is not so.

[SoCalDem]

83. Basically, I think that progressives prefer to have religion & politics "divorced" from each other

and this is a political forum.. Perhaps if it were a religious forum, there would be a different brand of discussion.

Repubicans are the ones who love their religion deeply embedded in their politics :)

[Madspirit]

85. NO

I am not bais against Christians and Jews. I am bais against Christians and Muslims. Why?
Lee

[On the Road]

89. Short Answer: YES

(and I say this as an atheist)

[Madspirit]

90. Atheist

I said I am not prejudice against Christians and Jews; I'm prejudice against Christians and Muslims. Why, you say.

I use a simple and selfish guide. As a lesbian, I ask myself what the most conservative faction of each of these religions want for gays.

The most conservative element of Islam hates gays and calls for the death penalty for us.

The most conservative element of Christianity hates gays and calls for the death penalty for us.

The most conservative element of Judaism hates gays BUT DOES NOT CALL FOR THE DEATH PENALTY FOR US.

I'm wacky that way. I prefer people who don't want me dead.
Lee

[Bill McBlueState]

91. pro-reality bias

Many DUers have a pro-reality bias, giving extra weight to arguments that are supported by evidence. If any Christian or Jewish beliefs aren't supported by evidence, they may not fare well when subjected to a pro-reality bias. But that doesn't mean people with a pro-reality bias have an inherent animosity toward either of those religions or their followers.

[Tyo]

104. I'm biased

I'm biased against any religion or sect to the extent that that religion or sect is biased against me and tries to mess with my rights legislate how I should live my life.

[Meshuga]

106. I don't see much criticism about Judaism

here in the forum. I haven't noticed a bias against Judaism here either.

[redqueen]

109. So... what do you say now?

Have you read through any of the threads?

I'd say there's fairly little reluctance to criticize religion. :)

[varkam]

114. It's not that I refrain.

It's just that I used to be a Christian, so I tend to know the most about it and generally feel at home discussing it. So I generally don't criticize the Upanishads or the Quran don't because I'm a bigoted Christian hater, but just because I'm relatively ignorant when it comes to some other religions.