Face It, The Real Progressive/Liberal Fight In This Country Is Fighting Christianity

[stopbush]

That particular religion is at the basis of 90% of the right-left conflict in this country.

Remove Christianity from the mix and where are the arguments against a woman's right to choose, equal rights for gays (including marriage), health care for all and renouncing the idea of just wars? Remove the idea of class - where a powerful elite tells the underlings what to do, as the elite do in our capitalist system - and you remove the "kingdom model" upon which the concept of heaven is based. There are no votes in heaven. Heaven ain't a democracy, it's a dictatorship run by the Big Elite Guy In The Sky who is lording eternity over his cowering serfs. The kingdom model of "governance" outlined in the Bible is exactly the kind of governance our Founding Fathers threw over when they wrote and enacted the Constitution.

We're fighting skirmishes in this country, and the present war in the health care reform debate is largely a civil war among Ds who are having their battles defined by the Christianistas on the right, who are in turn defining those battles exclusively through the prism of Christianity.

We'll never get rid of the scourge of Christianity in this country, but we should have the guts to admit from whence our problems arise.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. true, but phrasing it that way pisses off those who believe in fairy tales.

[whathehell]

6. Yes, and we can see that YOU are trying hard NOT to do that!

SCREW the anti-Religion BIGOTS!!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

30. cool. we like sex. Especially with hypocrites who hide behind

a collection of tales stolen from so many previous tribes, nations, and groups who concocted them.

By the way, we are not bigots, we willingly have sex with willing partners, even if their minds were twisted by religious fairy tales. Honestly! We mean it. There is no better way to make them see the light.

[whathehell]

37. Um...chairman?....I hate to ruin a good fantasy but this thread isn't about sex

It's about religion....Project much?:rofl:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

39. But you wanted to screw us. OH, I get it.

THAT kind of screw, not the fun one. The kind that screws with your brain, stealing stories from ancient tribes, claiming that each and every translation is inerrant, and pretending that the power of prayer (LOL this one's the best) actually can change things. To really screw someone, how about faith healing for diabetic 12 yr olds, until they are dead?


So what do you pray for? When Notre Dame plays SMU, are you so conflicted that you get a migraine? (Does prayer help get rid of the pain?)


a three part god, who inserts his godly sperm in an unsuspecting virgin, just so his youthly part can spend time in a desert, feed people with bread and fish, and kick out the bankers from a temple? Finally, just when Son #1 starts traveling around with a bunch of whores and hookers, out of work wood workers, and having one last dinner party, the son instructs his sheeple to eat his flesh and drink his blood? Damn, that's a good one.

[Ilsa]

2. Alot of the liberal left is Christian. They simply don't want

one interpretation of Christianity running the policies of the USA.

I've become agnostic. But I don't want the perception to be that Liberals are anti-Christian.

[krabigirl]

3. Well, not Christianity...right-wing Christianity.

I'm agnostic and UU, and the liberal Christians there are not like this. But yes, we must fight the theocrats.

[krabigirl]

4. also, most true Christians would be FOR health care for all..wouldn't they?

Then again, what would I know, I'm not Christian.

[stopbush]

43. I don't know. Jesus didn't believe in health care. He believed in miracles to cure people.

He told people to have no care for the morrow. Forget thrift and making something of yourself here on Earth. Ask and ye shall receive, and all the rot (ie: the reason Xian Scientists won't go to a doctor).

[ChairmanAgnostic]

50. think "faith healing" & "power of prayer" instead of health care.

And see where that leads one. Other than to a cemetery, I mean.

[davidwparker]

5. unrec. As a Christian, who is "left of the left", I disagree.

Unrec'ed for the broad-brush stroke of the title

[whathehell]

7. THANK you...I am also "left of the left....Screw the anti-religion bigots!

[stopbush]

22. One cannot be bigoted against religion any more than one can be bigotted against conservativism.

Bigotry and bigot are terms reserved to define having intolerance against aspects of a person that they are born with, like ethnicity, race or gender, ie: something you were born with (or as), and that you have no control over. If you don't believe me, look it up in any dictionary. One cannot be bigoted against an idea, and religious beliefs are ideas.

Religion is NOT something you are born with. It is a philosophical system that one CHOOSES to adopt. It's just like a political system that one chooses to adopt. I see no difference in expressing intolerance for religious beliefs just as I express intolerance of certain political beliefs. In the marketplace of ideas, religious beliefs are up against the same standard of bullshit detection as are any other beliefs.

I thought the deal in the USA was that I had to respect your RIGHT to believe whatever you will. That doesn't mean that I have to respect the belief itself, whether that belief is a plank in the RNC platform or a belief in the resurrection of a zombie.

Yes, the religious like to whine about people being bigoted against them, but it's just that, whining. It's coming up with a new definition of a word to assist in the whining.

I like you just fine and respect you as well. Your religious beliefs? Not so much.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. That's what Christians are always saying, isn't it?

[whathehell]

27. Religions and "conservatism" which I believe you are conflating

are not one and the same. There are MANY types of religion. Buddhism, for instance, is quite different than Christianity.

You say "I like you fine and respect you as well. Your religious beliefs? Not so much"

The problem is, you don't know what my religious beliefs ARE..or, in fact, if I have any. I can be against "intolerance" of religion -- and the religious -- without being religious myself.

[humblebum]

61. It's interesting to see your new definition of bigotry. So, I

can only conclude that if it is not possible for one to be bigoted against religion then it is also not possible to be bigoted against an atheist?

[rd_kent]

62. Actually, that is incorrect.

From the dictionary.....

Bigot: –noun

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

[Sal316]

69. Bullshit... you can be bigoted against religion.

Bigotry is defined as : Stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Judging by some of the posts here, I'd say R/T has a substantial population of bigots.

[54anickel]

8. Oh my, that's a strange understanding of Christianity, its god and the kingdom from the parables

of Jesus of Nazareth. Though it sounds very close to how many of the wing-nuts understand it.

Please stop scapegoating the extreme right wing and their flavor of Christianity. The problem is systemic and there's plenty of "blame" to go around. If we don't fix the system it will just be some other group trying drive the bus down the road. Republicans learned how to use Christians, or perhaps wing-nut Christians learned how to use Republicans - either way, the system has been exploited by special interests. It's an abuse of power resulting in a dysfunctional government.

[More Than A Feeling]

9. How does imagining Liberal Christians out of existence move the country forward?

I recommend this article: http://www.uuworld.org/ideas/articles/151713.shtml

[existentialist]

10. This thread is like criticizing Christianity for opposing science

and persecuting heretics who argued things like the earth revolving around the sun instead of the sun around the earth.

There is an element of truth, but on deeper analysis it doesn't work because the the scientists themselves undertook their investigations because of their own roots in the church.

Copernicus was a priest, for instance. Also Galileo, Descartes, I don't even know how many others, were deeply rooted in the Catholic church.

Similarly, a lot of what is wrong and lamentable in the United States and the world these days can be tied to religion.

But if religion, specifically Christian religion were not a part of the mix, it is almost impossible to conceive of slavery being ended, of a civil rights movement of any consequence, of any significant element in the political dialog concerning the rights of the poor and disenfranchised.

There is a lot to criticize in the church, and I've criticized more than perhaps I should have myself, but I am aware that without the church there would scarcely be any concerns over injustice at all.

[stopbush]

26. That's a very limited view of things.

These great scientists you mention all belonged to the church because had they not, they wouldn't have gotten the education or had the funding to pursue their scientific research. Newton's scientific efforts were done under the belief that he was proving god's hand in things. The fact is that as soon as any of these Church-supported scientists challenged church dogma, they were immediately censored or imprisoned.

The church was not promoting their studies to discover whether a belief was true. They were supporting their studies to hopefully find a reason for why a belief was true. As soon as a scientist decided the whether had negated the why, they were toast.

You are confusing cause with intent.

In addition, your reading of history is quite selective and fanciful. The Bible's condoning of slavery was used by the South as justification for their owning slaves. Martin Luther King was as influenced by - and villainized for - his association with secularists like Bayard Rustin as he was by religion in this struggle for equality. I know that Xians love to assign the whole of Dr King's civil rights efforts to the "Rev." that precedes his name, but history tells a different story.

BTW - I find it quite insulting of you to write, "without the church there would scarcely be any concerns over injustice at all." That bromide disrespects millions of people who have no religious beliefs but are on the forefront in addressing human injustice at its core, including many of the Founding Fathers who were atheists in the modern sense of the word (and - at best - deists in the historic sense of the word). It asserts that one cannot be concerned about injustice UNLESS one is religious. And - most strikingly - it ignores and excuses the centuries of pain, suffering, injustice and death the church has imposed and exacted - and continues to impose and exact - on humanity, by averring that Bronze-Aged hokum must inform and determine what is unjust and what is perfectly acceptable. Let's not forget that as we speak, the RCC and the holy rollers are busy labeling the use of condoms in Africa to be immoral as determined by their religious beliefs, even if their use helps to stop the spread of aids. Justice indeed!

Such bullshit, and offered so flippantly.

[existentialist]

28. Actually its not a limited view of things at all

basically it's Nietzsche's view that Christianity gave rise to modern science precisely because Christians began to take a serious look at science in an effort to prove the existence of God.

And it is not Nietzsche's view alone.

It was in fact, of of the significant points gleaned from a history major focused primarily on western civilization.

You may be correct that it was flippantly offered, but it is also the considered opinion of large numbers of both historians and philosophers.

And on that point they are correct.

[stopbush]

32. And Nietzsche was wrong because he didn't have access to the knowledge of the world we have today.

What was Christianity's role in the ancient scientific advancements that were made in China and elsewhere, advancements made before Jesus was even a twinkle in some fabulist's mind? Hell, the Chinese documented the first recorded solar eclipse in 2100 BC and made the first recording of any planetary grouping in 500 BC.

If you wish to limit yourself to the Western world, then you need to consider the ancient Greeks - Pythagoras and Aristotle, for example, who predated Jesus and who also sowed the seeds of modern science and critical thought. What about the Persians, who discovered the heliocentric nature of our solar system hundreds of years before the Christians thought of it, and who also put forward a theory of evolution 600 years before Darwin?

Again, if you want to view everything through the narrow prism of Christian self-congratulation, then be my guest. But don't be surprised when you find that the "considered opinion of large numbers of both historians and philosophers" can be considered "correct" only because their view of history - like your own - is myopic and biased.

[existentialist]

35. And the Greeks and the Egyptians, and the Mayas and the Hindus and

almost every other non Christian civilization made major contributions too.

But it was in Christian Europe that calculus was developed, and much of the rest of the mathematics that provided a scientific basis for the industrial revolution.


If you think Nietzsche was unaware of the achievements of other civilizations you are sadly mistaken.

You are also sadly mistaken if you think Nietzsche liked Christianity.

[stopbush]

40. I'm well aware that Nietzsche didn't like Xianity.

I'm one of those who has suffered through reading his Also sprach Zarathustra. :evilgrin:

Where I'm disagreeing with Nietzsche is his implying that without the church, scientific progress would not have been made. I'm simply pointing out that scientific progress has been made throughout history without the input or encouragement of any religion. Indeed, if one is going to tout religion as a catalyst for scientific discovery then one must also recognize that religion has held back scientific advancement just as much if not more (cue the Dark Ages).

My argument is that religious belief at its core is not forward looking because it is based on fantasy and lies. Being based on lies, religion is always in a position of being challenged by reality. Religion has always had and continues to have an adversarial relationship with science. How could it be otherwise? One is fact based, one is fantasy based.

I disagree with Nietzsche that religion somehow was THE inspiration for scientific advancement. Religion was marginally involved, of course, but only because it was the power structure that was emergent at the time. Scientific advancement would have happened were Xianity not around, just as it has happened in non-Xian societies throughout history. Science advanced in large part spite of Xianity, not due to it.

BTW - Merry Christmas!

[existentialist]

51. Thus spake Zarathustra

First of all, Nietzsche considered Thus Spake Zarathustra to be, what it essentially was, a poem, and elsewhere Nietzsche wrote:

"Poetry is useful
It can tell
Te truth by means of parable
To those who are not so bright."

I too have read it, but it cannot be taken to clearly state Nietzsche's position on anything because it's a poem.

And he also states, in Ecce Homo, that one should read Thus Spake Zarathustra because it states the same thing as Beyond Good and Evil, "but differently." Beyond Good and Evil is, therefore, a more authoritative work to cite for Nietzsche's central points, but even there it's like reading the Uniform Commercial Code because everything is cross linked to every thing else, except that unlike the Uniform Commercial Code, Nietzsche provides no footnotes with direct references.

A direct quote from Nietzsche with regard to Christianity in particular inspiring modern science is:

"Only on such a solid foundation of ignorance could knowledge rise so high."

But to understand that, and why, one has to understand that coming out of the (self-named) middle ages, thinkers in Christian Europe were desperately looking for ways to prove the existence of God, and this lead to the development of rigorous scientific method, and indirectly to the results thereof.

The easiest way to trace this is through Descartes' essay which is famous for the statement, "I think therefore I am." This is far from impressive philosophy. (It was nicely ridiculed in the Monty Python skit as "I drink therefore I am.") But, (1) it was influential in the development of Western thought, and (2) it was not produced by a dummy, but by a very intelligent mind (the same one that gave us Cartesian coordinates) that had the felt need to go through such mental gymnastics to produce a proof of God.

Merry Christmas to you too.

[Oregone]

11. No. Its used to create a divide that aids the fight of socialism vs capitalism

And ironically, many Christian ideals support socialism, but its appeal to the right has helped organize those masses instead.

Social issues are a big distraction from the real economic issues of the day. Religion is essentially a tool used to manipulate people to vote against their economic interest for moral issues (that never hardly get legislated on federally), and once elected, those "Christian" candidates transform to corporist/capitalist legislators

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. That's because the right wing took advantage of the vacuum left by the

Democratic Party when it abandoned the working class and rural voters starting in the 1970s and 1980s.

Your average top-level Republican's values and way of life are about as traditional as Amy Winehouse's, but the neocons and the others were savvy enough to see that working class and rural voters were being hit by forces they didn't understand, so they came up with the idea of appealing to small-town traditional standards of behavior.

It was something to cling to, and, by the way, a complete reversal of what evangelicals traditionally stood for.

In more secular countries, many of the disaffected working class and rural voters are turning to racist and ultra-nationalist ideologies for the same reasons.

The Dems need to get back to taking care of issues that affect these segments of the population, most notably, jobs and aid for small businesses and family farms.

[DeSwiss]

47. Absofuckinglutely. n/t

[izquierdista]

12. Face it, he's right

Religion is the anchor that holds empires fast and keeps them from adapting to new circumstances. No one worships the god of the Pharaohs any more, nor the Hittite or Greek or Roman gods. Christianity and Islam seem to have a new twist on how to survive the collapse of empire -- fashion a bunch of sects so that one will live on. Kind of like evolution, that.

[stopbush]

19. Thanks for the support. I thought I'd talk about the elephant in the room.

I could have softened the blow and said "all religions," but we're talking about the US of A, where Christianity is the problem.

Like Christopher Hitchens, I believe that religion poisons everything, and by that, I mean ALL religion in all it's forms, be it Xianity or Islam or whatever, radical, conservative or liberal. The base problem arises when one makes decisions that effect the lives of people based on make believe, and religious beliefs are - to put it courteously - made up shit.

As far as the apologists who talk about how many good things religion has inspired in this country and around the world, I would issue the challenge Mr Hitchens presents in his book God Is Not Great- name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. And the second challenge: can you think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith?

To opine that people perform good deeds because they are religious speaks very ill of them. To imagine that people believe they need religion to love their family or to help a neighbor - as the religious often aver - is really quite pathetic, and shows an absolute and WILLING disconnect from the basic humanity that we have evolved over the ages. That disconnect is practically unobtainable without religion's urging.

And let's face something else - formerly Xian countries like most of the countries that make up Europe are the most-progressive and most-liberal countries in the world. They've dumped the fantasy and gotten to work on the problems of real people by offering reality based solutions that don't reference religious beliefs when deciding public policy.

As I like to say, religion is the outright theft of our innate human goodness. We don't need religion to do good, but it sure helps if you're looking for an excuse to justify doing something bad.

Merry Xmas to all!

[Meshuga]

38. I don't know

I wish problems were so simple that if we got rid of Christianity and all religions that most problems would go away or get better (or worse). But they probably won't. You see, wars would still be waged with the help of greed and there would be people like the person you quote, Christopher Hitchens, who would be promoting unjust wars. You can certainly blame Catholics and Christians for their role in the Health Care debate but if we take them out of the picture you will still have *the major force* against reform -- the health care industry -- dumping money to influence our politicians to vote against our interests.

The view that religion is the root cause of all evil and can do no right is a view that seems too simplistic and it robs the mind of the free thought and critical thinking that comes with not believing in a deity who "tells" a believer how he/she should think or behave. Yes, religious thought is behind homophobia, women's right to choose, and a lot of the insanity that we have to deal with but there seems to be much hyperbole in the anti-all-Christianity claims that is fed by all the lumping. And the lumping, in my perception, seems convenient in maintaining a simplistic world view by providing a simple formula to assign blame and maintaining a naive utopian vision that the world would be a better place if we only fight religion.

Knowing and willing to recognize that there are distinctions seem more appropriate and more rational, in my opinion. And I think it helps us focus on the real problems out there that affects all of us.

[stopbush]

42. There's no such thing as utopia. I would simply point to countries in the West

that have marginalized Christianity and remark that they are the most-progressive countries on the face of the Earth.

I think these are cases where cause and effect are pretty clear.

[Meshuga]

45. Which western countries have marginalized Christianity?

And can you give examples of this marginalization?

My perception is that Christianity is not really marginalized in any progressive country where, in contrast, the marginalization of Christianity would be much less likely.

I would agree that religion tend to be more liberal in more progressive nations and that the religious right is viewed negatively but I don't think Christianity per se is marginalized. One would reasonably conclude that liberal Christians enjoy the secularism that these progressive societies provide.

[stopbush]

46. There's Sweden, where roughy 65% of the population identifies as non-religious.

Church attendance has dropped dramatically in England. Projections are that "by 2050 there will be just 3,600 churchgoing Methodists left in Britain, Christian Research predicts. Anglicans will be down to 87,800, Catholics to 101,700, Presbyterians to 4,400, Baptists to 123,000 and independents to 168,000."

Here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3890080.ece

This 2005 article from USA Today say that "the drop is most evident in France, Sweden and the Netherlands, where church attendance is less than 10% in some areas." On the positive front, the article also says: "the waning influence of religion also has brought a change in attitudes and laws on issues such as divorce, abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research. In June, for example, Spain became the fourth country in the world to legalize gay marriage, after the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada. The measure was supported by more than 60% of Spaniards, according to a poll in December by the Center for Sociological Investigation. In the USA, where religion and church attendance are comparatively stronger, 11 states voted last year to amend their constitutions to ban gay marriage. Europeans debate whether these changes are positive or negative for society. But it is evident people feel freer to make decisions within their own moral framework.

"The declining (church) attendance is really dramatic, but what is even more important is that the churches are losing the ability to dictate to people how to live their lives," says Ronald Inglehart, director of the World Values Survey, a Swedish-based group that tracks church attendance.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-08-10-europe-religion-cover_x.htm

I use the word "marginalized" when "abandoned by the population" might be better. The efforts to marginalized Christianity in England include the government doing away with the privileged status the church has held for centuries. This includes raising utility rates to what other businesses pay etc. That has the effect of marginalizing the church's clout in England.

In spite of this, religious studies and daily prayer are still part of the general education one receives in England's public school system.

Go figure.

[struggle4progress]

63. Scandinavian Nonbelievers, Which Is Not to Say Atheists (NYT | Feb 09)

By PETER STEINFELS
Published: February 27, 2009

... The many nonbelievers he interviewed, both informally and in structured, taped and transcribed sessions, were anything but antireligious, for example. They typically balked at the label “atheist.” An overwhelming majority had in fact been baptized, and many had been confirmed or married in church.

Though they denied most of the traditional teachings of Christianity, they called themselves Christians, and most were content to remain in the Danish National Church or the Church of Sweden, the traditional national branches of Lutheranism ...

Thoughtful, well-educated Danes and Swedes reacted to Mr. Zuckerman’s basic questions about God, Jesus, death and so on as completely novel. “I really have never thought about that,” one of his interviewees answered, adding, “It’s been fun to get these kinds of questions that I never, never think about” ...

At one point, he queries Jens, a 68-year-old nonbeliever, about the sources of Denmark’s very ethical culture. Jens replies: “We are Lutherans in our souls — I’m an atheist, but still have the Lutheran perceptions of many: to help your neighbor. Yeah. It’s an old, good, moral thought.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html?_r=3&ref=europe

[Meshuga]

66. And making religion an issue is where the problem seems to lie

It's a trap. And American society in general seems to fall into that trap. Nothing gets done and progress slows down when its citizens are fighting each other over differences. The religious right welcomes the attacks because it energizes them and they help keep the status quo. And keeping the status quo is good for them and their allies.

I think it was George Carlin who said something like, "they keep us fighting with each other about our differences while they, the rich, run away with all the fucking money."

Scandinavian countries don't fall into the trap and look at them now. And look at us.

[struggle4progress]

68. Fostering anxiety about differences is an ugly game, and you're right that it's a major problem

[bfarq]

13. Interesting program on Fresh Air last week

I think it was Fresh Air, but maybe was Diane Rehm.

The guest was a "humanist rabbi", which seems to be a contradiction in terms. He insisted it was not.

He had many interesting observations, but the most central one is that this is a "Christian country" not because of a strong devotion to the tenets of the religion, but because of the social customs that are part of the Christian tradition. Most people who self-identify as Christians are not strongly religion, but they enjoy the many customers and are comfortable with the structure these customs provide.

One example is that there is essentially no reference to systematic, annual gift-giving in the Bible, yet that is clearly a "Christian tradition" that almost everybody partakes of. People like that and they don't want to give it up (and nobody is asking them to). So it works out fine for them to simply equate that with being "a Christian".

While 70-90% of us identify with many of the traditions, the number who are true believers in the religion -- I mean literally believing in souls, an afterlife, a heaven, Adam and Eve, talking snakes, the whole thing -- is a very small number -- probably under 10% of the population. The problem is that their influence is far bigger than their numbers, so I agree with the premise of the thread.

I do not agree that it is inevitable that this result in warfare. A more productive avenue is to continue to open the dialog so that people who privately have known that the idea of a controlling god and guardian angels and a blissful afterlife is a crock will be more comfortable discussing that publicly. And doing so with the full knowledge that they can still enjoy the "Christmas traditions" as they please. Many of those "Christmas traditions" predate Christ anyway. After all, Jesus was born in the springtime. The Catholic church created Christmas as a marketing move to try to overtake the pagan celebrations of the winter solstice that had gone on for millennia before Jesus. They were very good at marketing, to say the least. They also used this if-you-can't-beat-em-join-em tactic to try to get rid of Halloween. When they couldn't stop Halloween, the good marketers from the church came up with All Saints Day and a marketing story that says you bring out the devils on Halloween, and then the inner Jesus prevails on All Saints Day -- or something to that effect.

To all my deeply committed Christian friends, I bid you a happy Christmas Eve and hope it brings you what you are looking for.

[Jackpine Radical]

15. That's crazy.

The progressive/reactionary fight is going on within Christianity just as it is in secular society. 100 years ago, the Christians were at the forefront of progressivism in America. 170 years ago, they led the anti-slavery movement. It's the capture of certain strains of doctrinally conservative Christianity by cynical conservative elements that is at the root of the problem. And I'm given to understand that Biblical literalism is a relatively recent trend in Christianity, arising from certain strains of Protestantism in which ill-educated semiliterates were encouraged to think that their childish opinions had some merit.

[laconicsax]

65. Christianity led the anti-abolitionist movement too.

Abolitionists interpreted the Bible one way to suit their means and Anti-abolitionists interpreted the same book another way to suit their means. Same thing during women's suffrage.

Looks like your "forefront of progressivism" claim has some problems.

[Jim__]

16. Nonsense.

That type of talk only serves to further fragment and weaken the progressive movement.

[marginlized]

17. Bad Move

America has a long history of the Religious Left. Before MLK in the 60's, before JWs were being sent to prison for pacifism in the 40's and having their children taken from them in the 50's for refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, before Catholic Worker Houses sprouted up in the 30's, most Christians held strongly Socialist (and further left) beliefs in the 19th Century. Just read Edward Bellamy's "Looking Backward" for where the popular Christian mind was in the 1880s. It's a shocker. But then also consider the 19th C. Christian Communes like Oneida (complex marriages!) and Amana, etc. It's only clear that our battle is not with Christianity or Religion per se, but with the Capitalists who have hijacked them.

[Warpy]

18. Are Dispensationalism and Christianity the same thing?

It certainly doesn't look like it to me, since Dispensationalism, that loopy offshoot of Calvinism, seems to be counter every single thing Jesus taught. Dispensationalists are taught to groove on the myth, that they can sin as long as they accept the myth as fact, and that their ticket to heaven is punched no matter what they do. It helps if they're rich, of course.

Too many Christians are confusing the two. If one accepts the heresy of Dispensationalism as Christian, then yes, I guess the left is against Christianity of that particular flavor. Personally, I think you'd have to be nuts not to be against Dispensationalism.

[rug]

20. The real fight is against stupidity. Based on this OP, we're losing.

[stopbush]

21. Or, perhaps we're facing up to the real problem, rather than just accepting

that the stupidities the underpin religion will always have a place at the table that decides public policy for everybody in the country.

[rug]

23. If you're really interested in getting to the root, examine class, not theology.

[stopbush]

24. Theology is all abut putting people in classes, isn't it?

Even the fucking angels are put in classes in Christianity.

[rug]

25. Not in the least. Look at this country through the lens of dialectical materialism.

Theology is the study of the ineffable, not particularly useful for analyzing power, class struggle and political economy.

[rd_kent]

57. Haha! Theology IS class warfare. Its the original control mechanism of the masses.

[rug]

78. What were Christians controlling in 100 AD?

[rd_kent]

56. Yes, your side IS losing, rug.

Being willfully ignorant in favor of myths and fairy tales is losing its hold.

Thank god!

[Sal316]

70. Willfully ignorant?

Wow.

Aristotle would have disagreed with you.

In fact, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato.....all of them would have.

To Aristotle, theologia was the "first philosophy", concerned with the highest mode of being.

[Goblinmonger]

77. Do you believe in Aristotle's gods?

Didn't think so.

[rug]

80. Hmmm, Aristotle's thought or Goblinmonger's post . . .

This is tough.

[Goblinmonger]

81. Hmmmm, not addressing the questions

and posting a veiled ad hom. Nicely played.

So, wouldn't one's views on Aristotle's gods be kind of important in one's evaluation of his views on theology?

[rug]

82. No. The important part is his contemplation of deity to begin with.

The old theism/atheism conundrum.

I don't think he was wedded to any gods. To berate the defects of the various Greek gods is another hoary ruse to avoid the fundamental question.

[Goblinmonger]

83. "hoary ruse"?

Get a new thesaurus for Christmas? :evilgrin:

It goes back to the old concept that everyone is an atheist about all but their gods. Hey, I like Aristotle. I have a master's in Communication and a degree in English. We loves us some Aristotle. But to say that there are gods because Aristotle thought so is just a little silly to me. Now, if, as I think Aristotle was saying, you want to argue that "THINKING about whether there are gods" is a cool thing, then sure. But I don't believe that is proof of gods as was implied above.

[rug]

84. I guess you never got around to reading Metaphysics.

[Goblinmonger]

85. OK, whatever, I'm done.

Not in the mood for a pissing match. You're penis is bigger.

[rug]

79. I can see you're losing your mind yet I'll ask, what is this post referring to?

[DeSwiss]

29. +1

K&R

[darkstar3]

31. And today's You're Not Helping Award goes to...

Every time a progressive/liberal comes out with this argument, the right wing stuffs it in envelopes and papers the Bible Belt, making another few million in political donations.

Not to mention the fact that you cannot espouse the removal of free choice and speech and still be a progressive. I'm as unhappy with Christianity in particular and religion in general as the next atheist, but I don't believe that removal of religion should be a primary goal. I believe that thorough education, among many other actually progressive values, will eventually eliminate religion, and that is enough.

[stopbush]

33. People having free speech doesn't mean I have to take that speech seriously.

I'd be glad to know that the RW is stuffing my posts into mailings. Maybe someone will stop and think.Maybe I am helping.

As far as religion eventually being eliminated - if it's WORTH eliminating, then what's wrong with helping it along that road?

BTW - every time a progressive chastises an atheist for expressing a strong opinion, it is also an attack on free speech. Haven't these nutty religious beliefs been given a free ride long enough? Isn't it time that they were FORCED to explain themselves in the marketplace of ideas just like every other idea out there? Why do we look the other way when religion makes bogus claims about history and science, allowing religion the same standing as things that are fact based? Could it be because modern-day religion is the Emperor's new clothes of American society?

I'm sorry, but that free ride is over. Religion can either compete on a level playing field with other serious enterprises, or it can toddle over and take its rightful place alongside the other childish fantasies our society approves of as not-to-be-taken-seriously diversions, like Santa Claus and fairies.

[darkstar3]

34. Let me make this clear.

I agree with your entire sentiment. I disagree with the idea that progressivism must take a stand against religion. I think that stand would be against progressive ideals.

My stance on religion is like President Obama's stated stance on abortion: I'm against it, but that doesn't mean that I think we should necessarily BAN it.

(To be clear to the quick glancers out there, I'm against religion, not abortion.)

[eomer]

41. You seem to be missing his point, intentionally.

Even though the OPer made it clear he wasn't talking about BANNING religion (note the distinction about free speech a couple of posts upstream) you seem determined to twist it into that.

The OPer is apparently talking about fighting religion by exercising our own rights to free speech in the public discourse, not by banning or restricting the free speech of anyone else.

Maybe you should start over and base your counterarguments on what he is actually saying.

[darkstar3]

52. Read it again.

The word "ban" only came into my post because I was drawing a parallel between my feelings on religion on President Obama's feelings on abortion. It was a paraphrase, nothing more. I am not attempting to say that the OPer wants to ban religion. If you read the first paragraph of my post, you will see that.

I'll say this in a different way, one last time. Religion could very well be a scourge on all free societies on the planet, but it still falls under free speech and expression. As such, even suggesting that we, as progressives, set ourselves up as a diametric opposition to Christianity or religion in general is a dangerous and non-progressive idea.

[eomer]

53. But every atheist is, like it or not, in diametric opposition to Christianity / religion in general.

As an atheist, my beliefs are in diametric opposition to the beliefs of most religions. I have just as much right as anyone else to discuss and promote my beliefs. By promoting them I actively express my disbelief in most religions and I diametrically oppose them, publicly.

I think we're talking past each other because we're not delving into what we mean by opposition and what we mean by respect. I think that what is called for is not to refrain from opposition; rather it is to express our opposition in a way that is not hateful and does not scorn or ridicule -- to be respectful in the delivery of our ideas but not to refrain from delivering them.

When Christians knocked on my door a few months ago to proselytize, I was very friendly with them but I asked them, nicely, how they could consider the Bible "the word of God" when it had so many errors that were obviously the mistakes of men in it. I gave them a couple of examples: the two different versions of the creation in Genesis that cannot both be true and the impossibility of fitting all the species on Noah's ark. They were very nice in return and said they didn't really have an answer and would research and think about it. The reason I said those things to them was to try to convince them that at least some of their beliefs were mistaken and to try to get them to approach the Bible and their religion with more of a critical thinking process.

So, are you saying I should not have done what I did; that I should not do it again in the future?

[darkstar3]

54. We are talking past each other, that's for sure.

I don't know why you refuse to see the simple point I'm trying to make. Your last sentence is the beginning of a straw man, and I can't understand why you would go so far out of your way to set one of those up when I'm basically agreeing with you and the OP.

I'll say this, and then I'm done here because I'm sick and tired of repeating myself. As progressives, we should be championing free speech and expression for everyone. That means, as strange as it may sound, that we support BOTH sides. Christians have a right to air their ideas in public, and we atheists have a right to call them out for the falsehoods they are.

Another way of looking at it: It is my right as an atheist to challenge religious belief. It is my job as a progressive to help create a political and social environment where my ideas and religious ideas are both considered acceptable topics of conversation. It's not an easy combination of rights and responsibilities, but it is the right one.

[eomer]

55. We agree!

Very nicely said.

Sometimes it is worth a bit of extra trying; thanks for sticking with it.

[struggle4progress]

64. Reading Ernst Bloch might disabuse you of your stereotypes about the possible range of atheists'

attitudes towards religion. Bloch (1885-1977) was a well-known German Marxist and an atheist. He fled Germany during the Nazi period. His "Atheism in Christianity" has just been republished in English, and Duke University is expected to reissue his "Thomas Münzer as Theologian of the Revolution" in the new year.

From a recent review:

In Atheism in Christianity, Bloch provides an original historical examination of Christianity in an attempt to find its social roots. He pursues a detailed study of the Bible and its longstanding fascination for ‘ordinary and unimportant’ people. In the Bible stories’ promise of utopia and their antagonism to authority, Bloch locates the appeal to the oppressed. Through a close and nuanced analysis he explores the tensions within the text that promote atheism, against the authoritarian metaphysical theism imposed on it by priest interpreters. At the Bible’s heart he finds a heretical core and claims, paradoxically, that ‘only an atheist can be a good Christian but only a Christian can be a good atheist’ http://www.new-books-in-german.com/english/538/243/243/129002/design1.html

[ZombieHorde]

36. +1 nt

[silverweb]

44. I agree, *IF*...

... you change the word "Christianity" to "Christian dominionism."

Even better, change it to "religious dominionism" -- because other religions' dominionist types can be just as bad, but they just don't have the numbers here to even try.

[DeSwiss]

48. I came to this conclusion many years ago.

Although (as you can already see), you'll be chastised by others who believe similarly to you, simply because these Liberal Christians represent a buffer between a level of religious insanity that used to be so bad that it was able to command the authority so they could torture you, confiscate all of your property (which is largely how it got rich) and if need be, to kill people like you and me for our lack of belief in their delusion.

All believers, and yet many non-believers alike have a kind of tunnel-vision when it comes to religion, in particular the Abrahamic ones. They forget just how hateful and deadly these beliefs have always been for those who deny it, or worse, who ridicule it for its non-sensibility. The Abrahamics have always justified their genocidal killings of whole nations and groups of people, their rapes of peoples and lands, their pedophilia, and their back-stabbing murders behind the justification of ownership of it all, and their particular chosen-ness of their awesome god. The kind of god one would expect to be drawn by a sniveling backwater people to overcompensate for their smallness and irrelevancy. And today, The Pipsqueaks prevailed.

If this were any other organization that began its long history by killing off its competition we would avoid it like the plague today. The Mafia and other criminal organizations merely lack a deity when you compare their practices with the Christian religion. But that is exactly the history of Christianity. A state religion chosen by a leader so he could cover all his religious bases. And once these runts were picked from the litter of beliefs, these New Christians set about getting rid of their competition. And when I say GET RID OF, I don't mean they sent a bouncer out to ask them to leave. They burned every book they could find. They stole the temples and the rituals of their opponents and created a slapped-together smorgasbord religion that had a little bit of everybody's in it that they'd conquered, so everyone would feel at home in their new religion. Whether they liked it on not. And if not? Well the Tiber's still flowing isn't it? Chuck the bastards in and let their gods save them. He-he.

And so for the next several centuries it was nothing but one Pope War after another -- jockeying for position and power and undermining, torturing and killing anything that stood in its way. And when it got really bad, they ended up with two Popes and two religions until one Pope's army killed off the others. Such is the warm and wonderful history of this religion of love.

Yeah, all that rank shit, and death is forgotten and forgiven now -- because if you had to come to a true realization of just how disgusting this religion is and how it became established as some kind of purveyor and repository of the truth, people would be constantly puking while inside its confines. This is why it is essential for religions to have non-thinkers as the bulk of their adherents. Thinking people tend to end up leaving out of disgust, among other things. While their adherents remain out of FEAR, STUPIDITY and a sense of FAMILY and CONNECTION. And as long as these emotional and non-cerebral ties remain, so will religion and the hold that it has over its people.

So you get bigtime brownie points from me for having the cajones to say what everyone knows, but almost never has the guts to say. You'll not be welcomed for having said it. But then just remember what Jesus said:

Matthew 13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, "A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house."

on edit: Added my holiday greeting!!!!

Merry Saturnalia/Io/Yuletide and a Happy New Set of Downs!!!!!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

49. GREAT POST!

And happy Solstice to thee!

[DeSwiss]

59. Thank you!

And a Happy New Set of Downs to you!!!

- Let's just hope that we've got this cannibalism thing under control.....

[Feron]

58. More like fighting religion in government. Any religion.

Like the 90's song, religion and government you got to keep them separated. I don't want a Christian government any more than I want a Jewish one or an Islamic one.

People can believe whatever they want in private and practice a religion within reason.

However I think that a lot of problems stem from the fact that many left-wingers are more people pleasers than rabble rousers. They want to compromise with people who are more interested in taking over. So the left keeps losing ground.

[rd_kent]

60. Kick

[caitxrawks]

67. i haven't heard this much truth

in quite a long time!

It's hard to admit, but damn dude, you're totally right.

Imagine if we proclaimed this publicly. You just knoooow someone would be googling our names, finding out where we live, and promptly finding us and lynching us.

[Sal316]

71. Face it, this is bigotry.

Plain and simple.

If you want to blame all this country's ills on Christianity, feel free. You have the right to believe/say pretty much anything you wish....just like birthers, those that blame all our ills on "the gays" or "the jews" or "the blacks", and any other group of bigots that use this country's 1st Amendment to spew their ignorant hatred.

Those of us who are liberal Christians, however, ALSO have the right to call out this sort of bigotry, no matter the source.

This anti-religion horseshit being pimped here flies in the face of thousands of years of civilization, as some of the greatest minds in history, going all the way back to ancient Greece, saw no conflict between faith and reason. In fact, they saw them as complimentary.

So, keep on spewing this garbage...just know that the greatest minds in history would laugh at it.

“To believe in God is impossible - to not believe in Him is absurd” - Voltaire

[rd_kent]

72. Maybe Voltaire was wrong?

I would hope, that as a "liberal christian" you DO call out the bigotry and hatred spread by those that believe the same as you. Why don't you clean up your own house before worrying about someone else's.

And just because a group of people believed something for "thousands of years" does not make that belief any more true.


From my perspective, it is you and those that believe what you do who are spewing the garbage...and just know that the great minds of modern and future times will laugh at it.

[humblebum]

73. To say that is isn't possible to be bigoted against religion simply

is to deny legal precedent and common understanding of the concept of bias and bigotry. You said "and just know that the great minds of modern and future times will laugh at it". Now you are telling us what others will think? Your atheistic interpretation of the world around you is far from a majority viewpoint. Most atheistic thought expressed today is based on positivism, and that particular epistemology is used solely by a minority of scholars. It is an extremely narrow point of view and its purpose is very limited. It has absolutely no capacity to address anything concerning a metaphysical or supernatural existence and yet that is exactly the way it is being applied.

If it is not possible to be bigoted against religion then certainly it is not possible to be so against an atheist nor atheism. Incidentally, Voltaire was completely correct and certainly opposed to narrow-minded bigotry. He is credited with the idea that "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

[DeSwiss]

74. Good Video On This Same Topic.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iErLsmU_y4U&feature=player_embedded">Liberal & Moderate Christianity

[GMA]

75. One of the reasons I joined du was to join honest, intelligent

conversations about religion. I've learned that those don't exist here, for the most part. You who so hate religion--Christianity in particular--are a self-selecting group. For all the talk about tolerance, many of you are the most abrasive, intolerant people, at least on paper, that I've seen in my entire life.

You may begin the rants about how your childhoods were ruined by indoctrination, and how religion has been used for millennia to stir up the worst mischief and oppression. Your minds are made up, and in your race to hi-five each other as you escalate the insults, you don't realize that you're so far behind you think you're in the lead. Love, peace, and tolerance really are the answers, but you seem to run right by them.

I believed, when I first came to this site, that stereotyping people was uncomely and outdated. Sure, it's easy to throw around silly comments in jest, but there are some of you who are truly mean and, while screaming about the idiot knuckle-draggers, you slither your way along.

Come on, you guys. Grow up. People are complex, and, I believe, by and large, good. I've gained great regard for some here at du, as I have on some conservative sites, who see that there is more that binds us as human than divides us.

[GMA]

76. lol! And in this case

I was so far behind I thought I was ahead! Loser! Everybody has so moved on from this thread, but it's okay, I got that off my chest.

[DeSwiss]

86. "I got that off my chest."

- Well at least there's that. I know I feel better.....