Is a religious war with the Republicans really the answer?

[trotsky]

Is that really in the best interests of our party, our principles, and most importantly, our country?

When the Republicans have cloaked themselves and their agenda in a particular interpretation of Christianity, how does it help for us to do the same thing?

I and many other atheists have attempted to argue that basing one's political agenda on religion, and promoting it as such, is a sure-fire way to foster animosity, conflict, and gridlock. Each side digs in their heels, because if their agenda is what god wants, any effort to compromise is a deal with the devil! Is it any wonder nothing can get done?

Is more religion really the answer? Does history have any examples of encouraging religious intervention in politics to be a good thing?

[vi5]

1. No, but then again....

The Democratic party on all fronts has chosen to be a "me too" party on religion, tax cuts, war, deficits, etc. so why should they be any different when it comes to religion?

[mwb970]

2. The republican church demands a theocracy.

Religious republicans want to kill the government (the voice of the people) and put the Christian Church in charge. You know, like the paradises they have in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, secular republicans want to kill the government (the voice of the people) and put the corporations in charge. You know, like Mussolini, our enemy in World War II, who defined fascism as "the merger of corporation and state".

Republicans agree: the government must be eliminated as a significant force in our society so that the voice of the people is silenced. Then, it's just a matter of deciding whether the Church or the Corporations will take over.

I have never seen anything as explicitly un-American (not to mention un-Christian and inhuman) as today's republicans. It's like they are a different species.

[struggle4progress]

3. I have no idea what you're talking about. Could maybe you give some links to indicate

who exactly is calling for a religious war and what exactly they're saying?

[trotsky]

4. Religious war is the term I've chosen to use, because that's how I view it.

Perhaps you might find it easier to ponder this question:

When the Republicans have cloaked themselves and their agenda in a particular interpretation of Christianity, how does it help for us to do the same thing?

[dmallind]

5. We're doomed to lose it if we try

"God loves you and hates the people you hate" is simply a much easier sell than "God loves you AND those you hate, and you should strive to follow". It puts no onus on you, it does not present a standard you cannot meet, and it portrays you as being in lockstep with a perfect being. How the heck can liberal Christianity compete, when the reactionary hateful kind clothes itself in the same fake feel-good frippery of ersatz charity, morality and uber-humility?

I don't suggest the Dems should argue about religion vs. no religion - the majority of go-along-to-get-along nominal Christians would feel ruffled. The second largest segment - RW fundy loons - would get energized, and the small minority left over of liberal believers were going to vote Dema anyway. I simply suggest they should ignore it until directly questioned asnd then answer, with typical oleaginous political newspeak "we know the majority of the American people, Democrats and Republicans alike, make political decisions deeply informed and entwined with their faith. We trust them to look into their hearts and make the best decision for the nation."

[LeftishBrit]

6. Well, I don't think religion should be part of a party platform...

but I think that in fighting against the evils of the Right, people should use whatever they have and can use. Atheists should use humanist ethics; religious people can use the ethics of their own religions; all should in addition use pragmatic arguments, e.g. that the Economic Right brings down everyone but the rich, and sometimes even them.

In a fight against the vicious immorality of 'Let them die', I think we need every ally we can, and every reasonable weapon that we can. I was told by one American a few years ago on another message-board that 'a Christian cannot be liberal as liberals support abortion and homosexuality'. Another posted repeatedly on an apolitical international forum about books in 2004 to say that people must not vote for Kerry as he was a baby-killer; the same person also linked to NAMBLA to show what gay rights led to in her opinion. People influenced by such people and views *may* profit from having it pointed out that not all Christians share these opinions; and that Christianity doesn't preclude voting for a Democrat!

I think we are all in this together, and left-wing atheists, left-wing Jews, left-wing Christians, left-wing Muslims, etc. all need their voices heard, and have much more in common than right-wingers. It is far more important to me whether someone supports public services and economic justice and social equality than whether they do or don't follow a religion.

All this being said, I do have my line in the sand, and that is any attempt to imply that atheists are intrinsically immoral; that it is wrong or dangerous to vote for a politician who happens to be atheist; to equate 'people of conscience' with Christians or pro-lifers; or to recommend that church members and 'people of conscience' should gang up to attack and defeat pro-choice politicians - yes, Ann Widdecombe and Cristina Odone, I mean YOU!

[Boojatta]

7. "Does history have any examples"

Deism, by influencing some of the founding fathers, may have had an effect on substantive parts of the Constitution.

[trotsky]

8. Deism is no more a religion than "theism" or "atheism," though. n/t

[Boojatta]

9. Aren't there books about Deism?

Surely the founding fathers didn't merely wear T-shirts showing a slogan such as "Deism Rocks!"

[trotsky]

11. There are books about atheism.

Still doesn't make it a religion, though.

[Boojatta]

14. Pick one specific book that is about atheism. Preach, request donations, etc.

Soon your chosen brand of atheism could be a religion.

[laconicsax]

15. That's a good idea!

Thanks.

[trotsky]

20. Is the Democratic Party a religion, then?

People preach the party platform.

They request donations.

Etc.

[Boojatta]

21. According to some people, it's one branch of the religion for the worship of Mammon.

[trotsky]

23. Is it according to you? n/t

[Boojatta]

24. No.

[backscatter712]

10. I think it's inevitable. Republicans don't just use religion, Republicanism is the religion.

The Republican party has become a death cult.

See my thread in GD:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1943699

which is based on this article:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/09/goodbye-to-all-that-the-lofgren-thesis.html

Think about it. The RNA of the fundie Christian religious viruses have been mixed with the RNA for various Republican memes, such as trickle-down Ayn Rand economics, deregulation, aggressive shoot-first foreign policy, resistance to addressing climate change.

Now if you suggest we implement measures such as restrictions on carbon emissions, they immediately go into religious defense mode, as if you told them that Jesus didn't exist. The facial expression changes, like a scene out of The Exorcist, and you get attacked as a heretic.

[trotsky]

13. ...

[Deep13]

12. As a practical matter, I'm all for the STFU about religion approach.

The downside of that, unfortunately, is when only the extremist elements talk about religion, they become the defacto voice of it.

[socialshockwave]

16. If this ever comes about; Seriously? Us versus Them?

You'd have believers on the Left go join the Republicans just because they believe in a God or a deity?

is that what you're implying?

Seriously?

[trotsky]

17. Seriously, I think you need to re-read the post.

I said nothing of the sort. If you are still confused, let me know and I'll explain.

[socialshockwave]

18. My bad. I've been up since 5 am and my brain's kind of not working today.

I was wrong...I'll admit. I saw the title and thought you were calling for a sort of "athiesm left v.s believer right" war.

I apologize. :)

[Boojatta]

19. "I was wrong"

Words seldom seen on the internet!

[westerebus]

22. As the devil's advocate.

I can think of one religious intervention into politics that had a positive outcome. Pope John and the Solidarity Movement.

Having a Polish Pope that both covertly and publicly supported a national labor movement changed the course of history for Poland.

[trotsky]

25. Solidarity was not a religious movement.

Nor did they base their claims on religion.

[socialshockwave]

26. It was supported by the Catholic Church

since many Poles were devoutly religious and had to practice in secret due to Communist repression, the Pope and the Church leaders helped the workers continue their fight against the Soviet backed government.

[laconicsax]

27. So was the African slave trade.

That doesn't mean that it was a religious movement.

If you want to play 'credit by association' be warned--that knife cuts both ways.

[socialshockwave]

28. Uh...I know? Slave trade was wrong, but supporting Solidarity? Right. n't

[laconicsax]

29. The point is that a religious body supporting something doesn't make it religious.

The Southern Baptist Church supported slavery, other Christian groups supported abolition. That doesn't make slavery or abolition a religious matter.

[socialshockwave]

30. I didn't say that the Church supporting Solidarity made it religious.

I was just saying that they helped it to grow and prosper as a true anti-communist movement. That's all. AT it's core it was a people movement.

[trotsky]

39. Please see post #38 below. n/t

[westerebus]

32. The republican party isn't a religious movement either.

In your words, cloaked in religion, it is a political party.

You asked when or if a religious intervention did some good politically?

Oddly, I recall outdoor masses being held before the street protests.

And the Polish Pope who called for non violence and human rights during those days of revolution.

Solidarity was a political movement that had the backing of the catholic church.

[trotsky]

38. But they are using religion as the justification for their policy positions.

The Solidarity movement did not do that.

Please understand, I am not telling religious people they cannot participate in the political process and have religious reasons to do so!

What I am saying is that when BOTH sides are screaming that they are just doing what god wants, it becomes a holy war and neither side will compromise, lest they back off their god's position.

Get it now?

[westerebus]

42. I just report the facts and give the devil his due.

The side that was protesting for freedom were Poles who were catholic.

The side they were protesting against were the right wing communist party.

The side with the powers of a police state lost.

I have a friend who was there. She was at university, as she puts it when this all started.

She said, they were scared the communists would send in the army and machine gun everybody. The reason everybody was going to church was to get "forgiven" because they thought they were going to die according to her. When she saw all the people there at the church it was a shock, this didn't happen in Poland. There were so many people the mass was outside that was the shock.

Open mass, out doors in the common square were banned by the government. The government called open mass a political event.

It was a criminal offense just being there.

From there, they would march to the city center for the protest.

The government would not show the out door mass, but did show the protesters being beaten and arrested on television.

The next day there were more people at the mass. The rest is history.

I will modify a biblical passage:

For there will be usurper's and false prophet's amongst you, you shall know them by their deeds, and the (R) after their names.



*edit spelling

[trotsky]

43. And yet none of what you say counters my point.

Nor does it indicate why the left should use religion as a battering ram for their agenda when we don't want the right doing it either.

[westerebus]

53. I didn't intend to counter your point.

I replied to your question.

As far as using religion to promote an agenda, I doubt that will stop.

If your concern is the left will take to religion to score political points, well as an atheist, you do have cause for concern.

Co-opting the fundamentalists by the repub's keeps the repub's a viable political party.

Co-opting the repub's by the fundamentalists keeps them news worthy for political purposes.

History may not repeat, but it does rhyme.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[cleanhippie]

33. .

[humblebum]

56. I tend to forget at times that we aren't supposed to criticize atheism.

My mistake. It w--- happen again. Promise.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

34. So are the hoards of "liberal and moderate christians"

that we're told exists in this country. Still waiting for the "majority of christians" to stand up and speak out about the crazies in your ranks.

Until then, feel free to blow it out your fucking ass.

[humblebum]

35. Good heavens. You mean that you don't think they are doing wonders

for the Democratic Party?

[LeftishBrit]

57. To be fair, in the UK and a number of Europaean countries..

the liberal and moderate Christians do tend to outnumber and control the crazies. Not always, unfortunately. But often.

[LeftishBrit]

37. How many admitted atheists are there in Democratic Party politics?

[humblebum]

41. It is not how many are admitted atheists that is at issue here, but

how many are listening to or favoring the actions and positions of organized atheism, which is perceived by many as very hostile to religious freedom in America. There are extremists not only on the right, but on the left also. Many consider organized atheism to be as threatening to free thought and expression as far right organized religious groups. This is hardly a 2-sided issue.

[cleanhippie]

44. .

[LeftishBrit]

46. What are the 'actions and positions of organized atheism' as regards American politics?

Is there any party or group within the Democratic Party that would not allow people to go to church or pray or believe in what they damn please?

How many atheists, organized or otherwise, are there in Congress? - ONE.

How many atheists, organized or otherwise, are running for president? - NONE.

How in the hell are atheists going to interfere with religious freedom IN AMERICA? If they did, then don't you think more atheists would be getting elected?

Anyone who thinks that 'organized atheism' in America or even Britain is 'as threatening to free thought and expression as far right organized religious groups' is influenced by the paranoia of the right! Either you think that someone being rude or snarky on a message board, or in an academic article, is exactly the same thing as someone burning down your church or imposing a dictatorship; or you are being influenced by those who equate liberal laws about abortion or homosexuality with 'discriminating against Christians'.


I have voted for good atheist candidates in my time, as well as good Christian ones; and the person whom I want to win the next election happens to be an atheist (Ed Miliband, the Labour leader of the opposition). This does NOT make them dangers to free expression in this country! Atheists should have the same political rights as *anyone else*, and governments should *not* be in the business of imposing either a religion or atheism on their country. The threats to free thought and expression come from authoritarian governments who criminalize 'thoughtcrime' - not from atheists or for that matter religious groups as such.

[humblebum]

47. Atheism is hardly a political party or designation. nt

[LeftishBrit]

49. My whole point.

[deacon_sephiroth]

36. recced from zero, I agree with the idea,

I would LIKE to believe that an approach based more on facts, reason, and proactive tactics would woo some of the swing voters and moderates that are neccisary to make anything happen these days, but you know it'll NEVER work on the religious right (not like anything does). If they were going to start caring about facts and evidence... they wouldn't be the religous right...

[trotsky]

40. No, it wouldn't work on them.

But just because we don't want a right-wing theocracy, does that automatically make a left-wing theocracy better?

[Boojatta]

45. The outcome of a war of religious rhetoric is not necessarily theocracy.

For example, consider the rhetoric of Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.

(Of course, that wasn't his original name. His original name was Michael Luther King, Jr. He changed his first name from "Michael" to "Martin" and earned a doctor of theology degree. Hence "Doctor" and "Martin.")

[Thats my opinion]

48. what is really going on here?

There is a still a group of old r/t ers who are so anti-religious they want religion out of everything. They might even like to amend the Constitution to eliminated the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. So the post is really the 200th verse of the same song.

[trotsky]

50. Would you care to address the questions asked rather than attack others?

Thanks so much!

[Thats my opinion]

51. I have never once attacked non-belief--nor will I.

I have and will continue to take on a coterie of folks who by the hundreds of posts have attacked religion, and who search the internet for weapons. And that preoccupation spills over into putting down and frightening off anyone who offers the slightest support of religion. You may despise someone who was not frightened off. I will answer the question in my own way next Tuesday. That is just the way I work.

[trotsky]

52. It is really unfortunate that you cannot get past the idea...

that questioning religion, and its role in politics, is equivalent to attacking it.

But in another way, you are so perfectly illustrating my point, I really want to thank you. You really exemplify what is wrong with the left wing using religion as the justification for our agenda.

[Deep13]

55. Good point.

You'ld think by know I'd know better than to bite at ad hominem bait.

[Deep13]

54. Well sure I'd want it out of everything...

...but there are practical and ethical limits to what I would be willing to do to effectuate that. I'm all for discussing the matter with people and trying to win the argument. As far as electoral politics go, it would be suicidal to suggest that religious people have no place in the D party. Anyway, why should it matter? A vote from a religious person is just as good as one from a nonreligious person. Finally, the free exercise clause protect people from official coercion on religious matters. I am decidedly against bullies of any kind including those who insist on controlling what people believe. So the free exercise clause and the no establishment clause are necessary to protect people from coercion.