Are sane Christians just as damaging and dangerous as the Fundie ones?

[Taverner]

I know fundamentalism is a threat - and if you don't think it is, take an elevator ride in either WTC 1 or 2, and you'll see what I mean.

But Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al, make the argument that even the moderate or "rational followers" are dangerous, as they fund the fundies.

While this may be true in Islam, would you say it is true in Christianity?

Most rational Christians don't attend the death cults the fundies attend.

Most rational Christians attend Unitarian or progressive congregations of mainline protestant orgs.

Your thoughts...

[NMMNG]

1. Their attitudes can be

Any time they declare the Fundies "aren't True Christians" so they can ignore the harm they cause others, they enable those individuals.

Any time they decry criticism of wrongs committed by Fundies with cries of "anti-Christian bigotry" or "militant atheism" they enable the Fundies.

[Meshuga]

4. From what you describe...

...the "rational follower" does not sound rational at all.

[NMMNG]

9. But you'll see those attitudes right here on DU

[cleanhippie]

42. I think you have it!

[patrice]

19. Their model, a man named Jesus, did NOT stand back from the truth around anyone. That's what got him

killed.

IF they are his followers, they aren't supposed to let fundies off of the hook. They aren't supposed to do what fundies do and hurt anyone else, including fundies, but the model is that they are supposed to give their ALL to the truth, no matter what.

[NMMNG]

25. Perhaps that's the model

But many Christians don't follow it, claiming it's not their place to question/criticize the beliefs of others, or to police other Christians.

[patrice]

26. Very true. It seems so odd to me that they have forgotten that Jesus was killed by his CHURCH-State.

His church didn't like him, because he detracted from their authority, not by direct assault upon them which they could have openly condemned, but by being/doing simply what he was. And his state didn't like him for the same reasons, plus with the encouragement of the religious establishment. He was too free; the people responded to that in him and that made his church-state feel threatened and he was betrayed by one of his own cohort for refusing to engage in violence on behalf of the truth.

You're exactly right about how too many think it is "not their place to question/criticize". We have to give ourselves permission and then seek that from others to talk about difficult things instead of running from them. We need to as Why and How much more often. Too much is to be accepted simply on "authority". What we're talking about is how to stand and act with more strength for truer truths, how to criticize honestly but without making THEIR mistakes of blaspheming self-righteousness and intentionally causing pain to others. Personally, I think this begins with modeling the behavior one's self, to show others how it is done by honestly admitting your own questions about yourself.

It is true that in the realm of beliefs, if one has a right to one's own belief, everyone else has a right their own beliefs too, and if everyone doesn't have that right, then neither does any given individual. So it's not a good idea to criticize beliefs themselves; there just isn't any rational grounds upon which to do that, because they ARE beliefs. But kind of similar to Socrates' exploring the relationships between principles and behaviors in the Socratic dialogues, real world consequences of beliefs are rational subjects that can be approached in a manner that asks questions in order to clarify and establish empirical knowledge. To me this is how one would get into questions like being against abortion but okay about killing innocent Iraqis; or from saying God is Love, but limiting Love as a lower priority than sexual orientation . . . explorations like this are what Christians need to take personal responsibility for.

It's an interesting question because it relates to a larger and very common question about how one does anything inside an established institution, government, business, religion, politics, community, without losing sight of your own unique personal truths that guide your doing; how to function relative to the otherness/institution and still bring one's authentic self and the real values that unique self has to offer honestly and productively into that otherness. This is something that needs to happen and not just in religion.

There are quality assurance models that talk about this kind of problem, but I have seen pretty cynical attitudes toward them around here. That's a little sad as some forward thinking business writers refer to exactly these kinds of questions in their recommendations for what to do to regenerate the American economy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/08/17/why-amazon-cant-make-a-kindle-in-the-usa/

[Meshuga]

2. What makes "rational followers" so dangerous? n/t

[LeftishBrit]

3. No - in fact neither for Christianity or Islam

Of course, there is not always an absolutely sharp distinction between 'sane' and 'fundies', and people can be sane on some issues and extreme on others. But there is a huge difference between people who see their religion as one of following certain rituals, acting decently toward others, and contributing to charity, and those who see their religion as a matter of forcing others to conform to a rigidly authoritarian morality, or even as justifying violence and war. And there are so many different sects and different churches/mosques/temples, that it is difficult to claim that moderate members of a religion are necessarily 'funding the fundies'.

Most of the religious people whom I know - including Christians, Jews and Muslims - are sane people and should not be deemed 'guilty by association' with the religious right, any more than vocal atheists should be deemed 'guilty by association' with the Stalinists.

[Meshuga]

11. Your last sentence there explains exactly my take

I have obviously seen examples within the Jewish community of some insane people but what would make me dangerous? Well, perhaps I can finally claim that danger is my middle name.

[patrice]

21. Yes!! That's a very important distinction. nt

[patrice]

5. By this standard you mustn't think anything that someone else abuses. nt

[Taverner]

6. Please explain

...

I'm not sure I understand...

[patrice]

15. I can't think Freud was right, because some people take him tooooo far.

I can't invest in green securities, because they can be included in hedge funds.
I can't support a woman's right to choose abortion, because some women routinely use it as birth control.
I can't support the legalization of marijuana, because those who have developed that market also sell crack.
etc. etc. etc.

[Deep13]

7. No. No one who does not shoot doctors is as dangerous...

...as one who does.

Having said that, moderates to create an atmosphere of tolerance of irrational belief that lends extremists a degree of legitimacy. "I don't agree but I would criticize you faith." Further moderate believers often support extremist leadership in their churches who in turn support repressive governmental policy. If you attend RC or Mormon church and give money, you are supporting the repression of women and gays, the sexual abuse of children and general RW policy even if you personally are opposed to such things.

[Odin2005]

8. I don't give a damn what people believe as long as they are not ramming it down my throat.

[Taverner]

10. Amen

[emilyg]

12. Thank you.

[patrice]

17. Don't try to force it on me - AND - Don't persecute me/us when we act to prevent you from forcing it

on others.

Don't expect special favors for what you believe (which is really just a corallary of don't ram it down anyone's throat).

*hypothetical "you", of course.

[tama]

29. You never

try to convince others to share your believes? Use strong hostile rhetorics against what you are against?

[LAGC]

31. Criticism, even ridicule, is a far cry from oppression. (n/t)

[tama]

33. "Criticism and ridicule"

especially from a crowd of like-minded, can certainly feel like being shouted down and oppressive when one is on the receiving side. "Objectivism" and "rationalism" together with facelesness of Internet forum and eagerness to "win a debate" can easily lead to forgetting that the one receiving the "criticism and ridicule" is a human being, a social being with emotions.

I've done my share of preaching my opinions with "rational arguments" and forgetting the rationalism of taking into consideration that we are also emotional beings. Ruined my marriage that way.

[Odin2005]

48. Trying to convince people is different than using government to shove religion...

...down my throat.

[tama]

50. True dat

That's why I don't like governements, especially the ones that are "too big to fall".

[elleng]

13. No, and I disagree

that 'most rational Christians attend Unitarian or progressive congregagtions of mainline protestant orgs.' I'm familiar with a progressive Catholic congregation in DC, and suspect there are many others.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

63. Unitarians are not officially christian. Somebody doesn't know their denominations.

Unitarians believed in one god. Universalists believed in universal salvation. They started as part of the abolition movement back in the 19th century. They merged in 1961 but are not explicitly Christian.
More info:
www.uua.org


The most left-wing denomination is the United Church of Christ, UCC, commonly known as Congregationalists. They were the pilgrims who built meeting houses, where the congregation looks at each other on three sides of the rectangle. They have tall clear windows, no stained glass. Jeremiah Wright's church is U.C.C. They are very much into activism.

There are also liberal Episcopalians, Presbyterians and some Methodists. I graduated from a Presbyterian college and was raised Presbyterian, so I know more about them than the others. I consider myself a Unitarian-Universalist.

[patrice]

14. It is said that Atheists can come to manifest ethical principles that are as pure as any. Is it not

possible for Christians to evolve until they come to the same understandings, but because of the chance happenings of their lives those understandings have acquired a different label, "Christian"?

A truth is a truth, no matter what label it HAPPENS to acquire, and no matter how much un-necessary dross some people attach to it. There is a point to the possibility that, by PASSIVE social association, the dross gets reinforced, but Christians don't have to be passive in their associations with other Christians. Certainly there is some social pressure to be passive, "peaceful", but it's not intrinsic to Christianity itself and it is possible to be theologically and morally "aggressive" without making a personal attack out of it, a peaceful warrior like Martin Luther King was.

[Taverner]

16. No, the Xians have the ultimate excuse for their behavior

"God told me to!!!"

[patrice]

18. That's a bastardization of their own precepts, beginning with the 1st Commandment.

Even Lord Jesus himself said "Father why hast thou forsaken me?" when what we are told was the culminating event of his life was completed.

There is no salvation in any kind of quid-pro-quo, that's BUSINESS, not un-manifested, a.k.a. spiritual, truth. Quid-pro-quos are the opposite of risking EVERYTHING on a potentiality, an emerging property, that may or may not manifest itself.

[tama]

30. And what is the ultimat excuse for

materialistic determinists for their behaviour? Big Bang density matrix made me do it!!!

In terms of philosophical ethics "God told me to" and "Big Bang told me to" are equivalent despite seeming ontological differences.

[cleanhippie]

43. Has ANYONE ever used "Big Bang made me do it" as an excuse?

Didn't think so.

[tama]

46. Don't know

but that is the logical consequence of a fully deterministic Big Bang theory.

[cleanhippie]

52. So you just made it up in order to try to rationalize the "god made me do it" nonsense.

[tama]

54. Thanks for asking

I brought it up to show that in this context Big Bang determinism is logically equivalent to "god made me do it" argument.

[cleanhippie]

55. But it's not. Not even a little.

And you know that.

[tama]

56. Creator of universe,

cause behind all causes, immovable mover,.. whether you call it "God" or "Big Bang", in terms of reductionistic causalitty it does not matter by what name it's called, it made me do this.

[cleanhippie]

57. Ridiculous.

Nothing MADE you do anything.



Your attempts at philosophy are also ridiculous. But you know that too.

[tama]

58. Then

enlighten me please, what is the nature of causality, cause and effect? Do they exist?

[cleanhippie]

59. I have done enough enlightening for you.

you see how ridiculous your posts are, so I'm done with you.

Have a nice day.
:hi:

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[snagglepuss]

20. The father of Canadian universal healthcare was a Baptist minister though

not a fundie by any stretch as he preached the Social Gospel. "Before he died he said, "You're never going to step out of the front door into the Kingdom of God. What you're going to do is slowly and painfully change society until it has more of the values that emanate from the teachings of Jesus or from the other great religious leaders"."

No Canadian who appreciates universal health care would be wanting to throw Tommy Douglas under the bus for any reason let alone because he was a Christian.

[Taverner]

23. Not all (not even most) baptists are fundies nt

[patrice]

28. One of the finest people I know, a Director of Nursing, is a Baptist, from what I think of as the

more primitive branch of that family tree. Kind of like what we saw in Robert Duvall's movie The Apostle.

My friend was the first person I ever heard in a professional setting who expressed some respect for Socialistic tendencies and who later became friends with the local Quakers who I introduced her to.

[raccoon]

39. Canadian Baptists sure must be different from Southern Baptists. nt

[ButterflyBlood]

64. Baptists are a diverse bunch, wish people would see more than Southern Baptists

I've met a woman before who is an ordained Baptist minister (a WOMAN I might add, won't see that in the Southern Baptists) who is a staunch supporter of marriage equality and ran an outreach ministry to sex workers. And it was not a "Repent of your sins or go to hell!" type ministry like one would expect, it was simply to reach out to women often neglected by society and enhance your lives, she even had a seminar on how strippers can INCREASE their earnings and never once tried to force anyone to change professions, their position was that these women were loved by God as is. Incredibly progressive person.

People also often forget Martin Luther King was a Baptist minister.

[dmallind]

22. No of course not

But just like non-racists in the 50s and 60s who dared not or chose not to kick and scream against their fellow whites who WERE racists and who held the political power, their cowardly acquiescence enables oppression.

And sorry you are incorrect - evangelical Christians far outnumber liberal ones.

[laconicsax]

24. No, they are not.

IIRC, the argument that Dawkins et al make is that the moderates enable and protect the fundies, albeit inadvertently.

[AlwaysQuestion]

27. Religion--the pits no matter how you slice it

I used to believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus and even the vengeful god who allows innocent children to starve and suffer abuse. But I don't believe in any of that stuff any more. This god of the bible can't possibly have a heart and be witness to the most horrific events that go on all over the world every single day. He is without a doubt unworthy of being even a friend. I am simply appalled that he's had the following he's had. I say to those out there who believe in this dogma, think things through logically and don't get caught up more on your supposed salvation than you do actual people who suffer needlessly. And don't bother with that hackneyed, sickening answer that it's not god's fault, it's man's. Balderdash. I refuse to be held responsible for a couple of people who ate the "forbidden" fruit. You try that one in real life. Tell your kids that if they do something you tell them not to do you'll banish them to the wilderness forever. Or take a child of yours and make him sacrifice his life to save all the people you know and don't know. They'd haul you off to the loony bin or worse if you acted the freakish sadist you would be. This god thingy is nothing but unadulterated psychopathic horror.

Religion is the pits fundamental or otherwise. I raised my kids with absolutely NO religion. Neither of them fears death; neither thinks about what happens after death other than "that's it." And I have yet to observe them being anything other than kind to others. And that's as it should be and can be without bringing in religion. I taught them one basic rule for living; namely the one and only Golden Rule. For my money, it's unbeatable. One can hardly go wrong when practicing it. But I did introduce the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus and that was fun while it lasted. But god? Never.

I, on the other hand, was expected to attend Sunday school and church--the crap I picked up along the way frightened me very much. Then I had a epiphany one day while I was at church and saw for the "first" time these grown up men bedecked in costumes. That's what they were--costumes. And then I observed the ritual for what it was--pure theatre. And I even let out a giggle it was all so very funny. And then I started digging further and further into the practice of religion--and then it became very embarrassing to admit that I believed in all this craziness. And then, I started thinking--really thinking--and putting the pieces together--and I soon realized it was nothing but a sham that only the simple minded and/or frightened and/or thoroughly propagandized and/or family/peer pressured individuals could continue believing.

I don't seek to persecute the religious; I merely keep my distance and hope that one day the world will be rid of superstition once and for all.

[trotsky]

32. Not in the least.

However, once one has accepted that things can be true without having any evidence whatsoever for them, it does make it difficult to start drawing lines as to what is or is not a valid belief.

[tama]

34. Proof theory

As Gödel proved, many things can be true despite they cannot be proven, or rather because they cannot be proven. Drawing lines with binary logic is not necessarily difficult, but it tends to lose view of the bigger picture.

Validity of believes can rationally considered in the context of ethical axioms and their logical consequenses, or as they say: "from their fruits they shall be known".

[trotsky]

35. All other things being equal...

do you think it is better to arrive at a conclusion and make a policy decision based on observed data, or one based on how one feels after praying?

[NMMNG]

36. Maybe policy decisions should be made after toking up

We'd be no worse off than we currently are, when you think about it. We might actually be better off since people would be more concerned about getting another batch of Cheetos than banning gay marriage and waging war.

[tama]

38. A friend of me

seriously thinks that ganja smoking should be obligatory - and that military games should be done without any taxpayer participation if some people want to play soldiers and wargames.

Like it, at the age of 18 for future citizens with political right to vote, obligatory draft to toking camp for 6 months. And for political right of being a candidate for an official position, another camp of 6 months of tripping with psychadelics. Hippy nazism, Sieg Heil Rastafari! :)

[tama]

37. False dichotomy

To begin with, how one feels after praying - or meditating, dreaming etc. - is also observed data. Second, "no should from is", no logical conclusions as to how things should be can be deduced from how things are. Third, I don't see it's my task or responsibility to tell others how they should make their decisions - though of course I'm willing to share my thoughts and experiences if someone is willing to listen

In my experience decisions happen as they happen and best to stay open to all and everything as well as one can, learn us much as one can consciously learn, not only through language and rational thinking but by all senses, and then let subconsciouss processes do their magick.

[trotsky]

40. Nope.

"I don't see it's my task or responsibility to tell others how they should make their decisions"

But when we have to make a policy decision that affects all of us, which method should we use?

You seem to be desperate not to answer that question.

[tama]

41. You seem desperate

to get an answer to that question, even though logical answer is impossible if we accept Hume's Guillotine and the question is not specified and based on some ethical axiom.

So instead of a "should" I can only tell that I myself like collective and consensual "anarchistic" decision making procedures, and/or if there's a social function of shaman worth its dope around, taking its advice. Don't like voting and dictatorship of majority/corporate corruption very much. Others have other opinions and likes of their own.

Hmm... and I'm still bothered by the "all" in your question. If that refers to affecting all human beings and the rest of the planet, including me, then I Me MySelf SHOULD be nominated as the Global Dictator and nobody else. The only institutional political position I would accept, because my definition of anarchism starts with: 1) I'm the Leader! :)

[trotsky]

44. It's a very simple question with real-world implications.

Viewpoints will collide when we make policy decisions. How do we decide which viewpoint to go with? You say they're all equal. Great. A decision has to be made regardless. Which one do we choose? The one with facts behind it, or what a new-age guru really feels in his heart?

[tama]

45. But

it's not a real word question, it's a what-if question with too many what-if presuppositions to be even interesting.

Also, it must have escaped my attention and memory when - and if - I said all viewpoints are equal. Could you please link to the post where I thusly expressed? ;)

Perhaps all viewpoints are equal, as viewpoints. The value of viewpoints in relation to other things beside being a viewpoing gets decided by other things. Certainly at the time, many viewpoints held the view that English viewpoints are the rational ones with all facts behind them, and Gandhi is just irrational new-age guru and rational Indians should not follow what Gandhi feels in his heart but stay with the British Empire, because that is the rational thing to do. From my point of view those viewpoint were not equal, those viewpoints that felt in their heart same as Gandhi felt were more True than those viewpoints that saw Gandhi as irrational mystic.

[trotsky]

47. Excellent - you don't think all viewpoints are equal.

How do you determine which ones are valid and which ones aren't? This is politics 101 - let's hear your explanation.

[tama]

49. Very flattering

that you are so interested in my opinions. :)

I have no universal theory or moral code for such determinations, my own viewpoints, attitudes and opinons are determined by my experiences and my character and thusly can (and do, spatiotemporally etc.) change from situation to another.

I do like rational discussions, philosophizing if you like, and for a discussion to be a truly rational discussion I like to search at least some common ground, like Hume's Guillotine and Ockhams razor as axioms from where to build onwards, together with ethical axioms that are shared or at least not in mutually exclusive conflict. Socially I tend to seek balance by taking side with the little guy if I perceive oppressive behaviour by this or that group or institution etc., according to each ever changing situation.

I put great value on self-confidence and world views that open up new possibilities to evolve and experience and less value for world views that are authoritarian and limit and close down evolution and experience, one could say that is my esthetic and ethical criterion for a decent TOE. In political theory and action I see lot of value in the so called "critical theory", which sees theorizing as participatory action in the political process that is simultaneously describing and affecting, based on ethical criteria. As a professor of religiouss studies and cultural anthropology ("study of world views") who was specialized in shamanism of Nordic peoples said, scientific study of shamanistic world views should be ethical, not just considering remaining shamanistic tribes as objects of study, but fellow human beings whose struggle for surviving ethical study of world views should support.

What else? Oh yes, related to self-confidence, in my current state my attention is relatively much in my proprioceptic sense and especially heart chackra, and how it feels in my heart chacra affects very much how I determine the value of conseptual thoughts from moment to moment. In both my world view and world feel, heart is deeper self than conseptual thought processes and self image based on them. Other viewpoints may consider such listening to heart purely mystical or both mystical and rational and maybe even purely rational, and that's how viewpoints are - spatiotemporal arrows of light don't know in how many dimensions of Minkowski space and Hilbert spaces on top of that. I can only accept mine as it is given by life and hope that you feel OK with yours.

[trotsky]

51. Great.

Now for a real-world, actual example:

When one group of people holds demonstrations to make abortion illegal, and another group holds demonstrations to keep it legal, and both groups feel very deeply about their positions and put a lot of energy into them, what is the policy decision we make? How do we make it?

[tama]

53. OK,

I'll share my point of view on the matter. Treat others as you would like to be treated is old and tested wisdom, so I suggest that we send a spokesperson to the group of people who want to violate habeas corpus of their women and suggest that they go away, preferably on some far away island and promise not to bother others, so we won't bother them if they want to hold to their barbaric customs of violating freedom to decide for one self about ones body. Let them be their tribe with their customs as long us they let us be our tribe with our customs.

If they don't agree to go away but keep on bothering us to make as adopt their barbaric customs, we shall gather again and then decide what to do next. Now I would like to hear what others have to say on this matter.

[trotsky]

62. What justifies you asserting your worldview over others?

People against abortion truly feel that a human infant is being murdered in an abortion. Who are you to tell them they are wrong?

[tama]

67. What justifies you asserting your worldview over others?

My worldview is open and evolving and it strives to build itself according to the ethical principle of Golden/Silver rule.

[Taverner]

61. "How one feels after praying"

Do you want the biochemical rundown?

Serotonin, Endorphins, and Adrenaline.

Same thing happens when you meditate, or think deeply on any subject.

That does not mean we are communicating with a deity - just that our brain gets a cocktail.

[tama]

66. I'm very sceptical

about that hypothesis. You may believe in the hypothesis of one-directional causal relation between electro-chemical neural processes and mental processes, I don't. It's not even a theory, just a hypothesis or presupposition, and I don't consider believing in that hypothesis either sceptical, rational or scientific.

[ButterflyBlood]

65. I go to a progressive charismatic church, so even the last bit is broad brushinging

Not all charismatics are like the Jesus Camp people or Benny Hinn type charlatans, something even liberal Christians fail to realize. My church has a very progressive crowd, and I've never seen anyone speak in tongues, roll on the floor, talk of demonic possession or exorcism or condemn anyone to hell, in fact I've never heard hell or condemning people for sin ever brought up even once in a sermon. People do get quite emotional during services yes and there's plenty of people shaking in the aisles and hand-waving which is what I like. I love the politics and tolerance of many of of the more progressive mainline groups, but their services still tend to be too ritual-focused and boring, which is probably why they are losing so many members and don't have many people my age sticking around. The average age at my church is probably about 25 by the way. I love it, it's a wonderful place and I've never felt more welcome anywhere else.