With the 99% ers

[Thats my opinion]

I recently spent time at the Los Angeles City Hall with a few thousand turned-on people; the 99% who are not among the nation’s super-wealthy. About two-thirds of those assembled were young adults. Others were clearly older middle class liberals, including a sizeable collection of families with children. The first man I encountered sheepishly admitted being a CPA. His beef? While the bankers and the corporations are skimming off the cream, the rest of society is being hung out to dry. “Unemployment, houses under water, no health insurance” were among his concerns. “Something,” he said, “is very wrong with the system. It’s loaded in favor of the already affluent.” I next encountered a man whose sign read. “If a real-estate agent is here, the situation must be serious.”

There were a variety of issues discussed and scores of workshops held throughout the day. “Corporations are not people” seemed to dominant much of the signage. This was not a slovenly mob. I didn’t see a single piece of trash on the ground anywhere. While food, clothing and other incidentals were being distributed by whomever had brought them, nothing was being sold.

Police were in the vicinity, but none on the grounds. I saw one officer outside the encampment getting his picture taken holding one of the protester’s signs. While a small group called for revolution, the organizers had done everything possible to eliminate even the threat of violence.

Groups of local university professors had their own areas, and there was a smattering whose symbols suggested that religion had formed their perspective. The only overt religious act I witnessed was by a couple of Muslims who silently stopped for prayers at the appointed hour. There was no evidence that anybody was selling religion or stickling it in anyone’s face. A few days before, the Rev. George Regis, a well-known Episcopal priest, was arrested wearing his full ecclesial robes. I’m not sure just what he had done, but he wanted people to know that the church was in support.

Having been in a ton of such demonstrations, I was impressed by the careful discipline in how this one was being conducted. Such events are not new. The earliest one I know about was not as quiet and non-violent as what I recently experienced. It also had to do with an obscene example of capitalist economics. “Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords he drove all of them out…He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. (John 2:13-15)

Nobody seems certain as to where these nation-wide events are headed. Certainly the time will come when the focus must be involved in the political debate. But the pure democracy evidenced doesn’t produce clear directions quickly.

Certainly many others in this forum have been to similar actions around the country. Let’s compare notes.

[trotsky]

1. "There was no evidence that anybody was selling religion or stickling it in anyone’s face."

So you decided to do just that by posting it here in R/T and tying in a bible story of your choice.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[darkstar3]

5. OK, you have GOT to stop abusing the language!

In your OP, you swapped the right word, dominate, for the wrong near-homophone, dominant.

Here you swapped the right word, allusion, for the wrong near-homophone, illusion.

You demonstrate repeatedly that you don't know what "fundamental" means.

This is just the latest thread in which you have demonstrated such ineptitude. I wouldn't normally be so put off by this, but you claim to write for (at least part of) your living, and therefore you really should know better.

[darkstar3]

2. Let's not, because this isn't the place.

The Occupy movement is not remotely religious, and I think it cheapens it for you to shamelessly attempt to make it so.

[trotsky]

4. +1 n/t

[NMMNG]

7. He can't help it

Some people feel the need to religify everything.

[laconicsax]

8. After all...

"None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith."

[NMMNG]

11. No, we wouldn't

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Thats my opinion]

13. Be serious

Are you really saying that the ONLY thing on r/t is that which condemns and ridicules religion, and that nothing which discusses it positively is acceptable? If so, this has ceased being a religion and theology forum and has become a agnostic and atheist forum.
Anybody out there who wants to respond to what is going on in the world--particularly the powerful things happening in cities all over the nation? Or are you so caught up in your hatred you can't see by them to the rest of the world?

By the way some of you don't need to respond to me. All I ever see is a note that says "ignored"

[darkstar3]

14. Does it gall you that we can still post even though you try to ignore us?

Your "shut up" gambit is noted. Again.

Having said that, what you've posted here is a straw man. No one here has remotely said that you can't discuss religion from a "pro" viewpoint. In fact, as many of us have pointed out to you, this is a discussion forum, and as such would require a "pro" view in order for discussion to take place. What was said is that we recognize your post as shameless self-promotion, because the Occupy movement has nothing to do with religion.

[laconicsax]

17. You admitted in the OP that there's nothing religious about the 99% movement.

I know you want to make posts that highlight the good that religion does, but there's nothing religious about the 99%/OWS movement and you readily admitted that there was no religious component.

The only religious component of your post is a contrived analogy to a Bible story. A story that didn't motivate this purely secular movement.

Normally I'd leave it at this, but you have a habit of repeating things that have already been rebutted, I'll again address your reply bit by bit:

Be serious

I am being serious.

Are you really saying that the ONLY thing on r/t is that which condemns and ridicules religion, and that nothing which discusses it positively is acceptable?

No, I'm saying that there's nothing about the 99%/OWS movement that pertains to the religion or theology. Your post here go great in General Discussion, Activist HQ, Economy, or even the California forum.

If so, this has ceased being a religion and theology forum and has become a agnostic and atheist forum.

No, criticism of religion and theology still pertains to religion and theology. It's interesting how you also equate atheism and agnosticism with being hostile to religion. That's quite the prejudice.

Anybody out there who wants to respond to what is going on in the world--particularly the powerful things happening in cities all over the nation?

Have you not noticed that there are thousands upon thousands of threads on DU that do exactly that? Check out GD--there are dozens of threads on the 99%/OWS movement. It's not being discussed here in R/T because it's a purely secular movement.

Or are you so caught up in your hatred you can't see by them to the rest of the world?

What hatred? I certainly don't hate you, this subject, religion, or religious people. I may not like how you've presented yourself here on DU and I'm not too thrilled with how religion is insinuated into our society, but you're probably a nice person and I know that religion is a source of comfort to lots of people and that's generally a good thing.

By the way some of you don't need to respond to me.

If you don't want people to respond to you, don't post in an open forum. An open forum means that anyone can read, anyone can respond, and you http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x4677">can't shut people up just because you don't like what they have to say.

All I ever see is a note that says "ignored"

I'm pretty sure this is technically a rule violation--last I checked, it's against the rules to tell someone that you're ignoring them (unless you actually have them on "ignore").

[Thats my opinion]

19. Maybe for you

there is nothing that has to do with religion in the 99% movement. But for many of us there certainly is. But then you may not want to see religion in anything. This not a "purely secular movement".
Did you really read my post. Lets me refresh your recollection:


"Groups of local university professors had their own areas, and there was a smattering whose symbols suggested that religion had formed their perspective. The only overt religious act I witnessed was by a couple of Muslims who silently stopped for prayers at the appointed hour. There was no evidence that anybody was selling religion or stickling it in anyone’s face. A few days before, the Rev. George Regis, a well-known Episcopal priest, was arrested wearing his full ecclesial robes. I’m not sure just what he had done, but he wanted people to know that the church was in support.

Having been in a ton of such demonstrations, I was impressed by the careful discipline in how this one was being conducted. Such events are not new. The earliest one I know about was not as quiet and non-violent as what I recently experienced. It also had to do with an obscene example of capitalist economics. “Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords he drove all of them out…He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. (John 2:13-15)"

I do not equate A and A as hostile to religion. I see these disciplines as an important part of the conversation. I just objectd to bigots whether they are religious or not.

[laconicsax]

21. Quoting scripture doesn't make OWS a religious movement.

That religious people are participating doesn't make it religious either. After all, if seeing religious people at an event makes it a religious event, then every Presidential election in this country's history has been a religious event.

Show me your proof that religion is the inspiration behind the OWS movement. Here's good starting place: http://occupywallst.org/about/

[Thats my opinion]

25. Nobody says that this is primarily a religious movement t. tg.

Neither is the labor, peace, women's , children's, Gay's, civil rights etc. But in all of these things there are religious voices, money and people. When Fr. George Regis gets arrested and is the only arrestee whose picture appears in the LA Times, and his churches support the movement, t hat is important to a lot of other church oriented people--who then show up--even if it is not important to you. My denomination, the Disciples of Christ, through its Disciples Justice Action Network, endorsed the movement and encouraged people all over the country to participate. As in all the other things we are advocates, funders, bodies and ideology in support.

When agnostics are involved in some social justice issue, that does not make it a agnostic movement.

[laconicsax]

33. The involvement of religious people doesn't make OWS a religious movement.

You nailed it with your last line: "When agnostics are involved in some social justice issue, that does not make it a agnostic movement."

OWS isn't a religious movement, an atheistic movement, or an agnostic movement. It is a movement with no opinion or position relating to religion. That is the definition of a secular movement.

[okasha]

31. Yeppers.

That's what he's saying, and it's the same thing a number of others have said. If religion is, however remotely, involved in something negative, it's appropriate for this forum. If religion, or religious people, are involved in a good liberal cause, then it and they are irrelevant and shouldn't be fluttering the tender sensibilities of some of the posters in this forum.

Religious people have been involved in every 20th century liberal cause I can think of. There were lots of collars and habits in the civil rights and anti-nuclear movements; liberation theologians at the forefront of reform movements in Latin America; nuns going to jail for their anti-nuclear weapons activities. Liberal churches are active now in pro-LGBT activities and in the various movments, of which the 99-er's are one, which are basically anti-capitalist.

[laconicsax]

32. Except that isn't what I was saying.

I'll leave you to play with your straw men.

[skepticscott]

38. Someone who claims to value "discussion"

but wears his ignore list like a badge of honor, need some serious help.

[Thats my opinion]

16. In a few days.

Is there any way to get an agreement that you will respond to what I say instead of just using it to find put downs--like religion occasionally has some relationship to ethics. When i am told that religion has no right to post on religion and theology, I wonder.

[laconicsax]

18. Can you say that again in a way that makes sense?

Thanks.

[Thats my opinion]

26. Sure

Whenever I post anything, or respond to anything, instead of dealing with what I have said, you seem to look for something to attack. There are fairly common rules of social discourse where people really try to hear each other instead of just finding a new weapon. I guess I'm wondering if when I respond about ethics that will be possible, or some of you will slip back into the same old unproductive "gotcha" game.

[laconicsax]

34. Spare me the condescension.

Has it never occured to you that your posts aren't as innocuous as you intend? You keep following he pattern of insulting non-believers and then getting indignant when we take offense. There's a pretty common rule of social discourse about not insulting other people.

I'm wondering whether your response on ethics will address what you said it would or if it'll be another example of you sidestepping the issues put before you.

Would it kill you to keep the discussion in the thread? You talk about the rules of social discourse, but whenever you encounter something you didn't expect in a discussion, you run away and start a new discussion to frame it on your terms. That's not helpful.

[cleanhippie]

51. All of your posts are pure, 100% hypocrisy.

:puke:

[rrneck]

23. PEOPLE have a relationship

to ethics. Religion is just a tool used primarily to get them to cooperate.

[trotsky]

29. Please provide documentation of this claim:

"When i am told that religion has no right to post on religion and theology, I wonder."

Who told you that? I need an exact quote, please. If you can't document the claim, I will be force to assume it is false.

[Iggo]

72. The first thing you did when you got here...

...was to take a big shit in the middle of the room.

And now you're complaining that it stinks in here.

Um...

[Goblinmonger]

9. Alerted

This doesn't belong here. It has, as you admit, nothing to do with Religion and/or Theology.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Thats my opinion]

15. O dear! it's whoever for sure.

I'm dyslexic and can''t spell anything. My frequent columns are carefully proofread and my reader catches dozens of errors. I take his work seriously. My stuff here doesn't have that advantage. But the better more interesting question: What response do YOU have to the substance of my post now that you have found something to pick at.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[rrneck]

20. Well

As soon as you run these jerks out of the temple get back to us.




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/0/03/20101020162734!Rick_Warren_-_PressKit.jpg

[Thats my opinion]

27. your pictured list is far smaller than mine.

Believe me, I do my best to drive them out of the temple. They are the money-changers. This is far more of a concern foe me than fighting with you all on r/t. But what you do here in an effort to beat down everything I say, makes my struggle with these charlatans more difficult. And I don't ask you to disappear until you have gotten all the Ayn Randers out of the agnostic temple.

[rrneck]

28. One would think

that after two thousand years of religion based morality you would have figured out how to keep them out.

Why would anyone sign on to a system that appears to be so consistently ineffectual if not actively pernicious?

I really don't have anything against religion. In fact I think it's unavoidable if not indispensable. But the abrahamic religions in general and Christianity in particular seem adept at profiting from the evils they should decry. In a big way. When Christianity proves able to police its own ranks then it will prove to be a positive force in the culture at large.

[Thats my opinion]

30. I most certainly agree

As long as there is some semblance of democratic wisdom in the church there is no way to shut down freedom of speech and action. We don't have police or police powers. We can witness against these people and groups, but our main effort is to witness in word and deed to a substantially different ethic which grows out of our faith. It doesn't help when on r/t there is a cottage industry in condemning all religion. We need ethically motivated partners who are not religious, not belligerent naysayers.

[cleanhippie]

36. Wow, that point went right over your head, huh?

You just don't get it.

[rrneck]

37. I disagree.

We need the religious to NOT approach politics through their religion.

Religion has managed to worm its way into bed with every rising power in seven thousand years because people inject their faith into the prevailing power structure. That's how those that lead them gain so much wealth and power.

Since this is a politically oriented board any religious voice will encounter stiff resistance. Religion simply has no place in politics. At all. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. And believers need help in making that seperation, not encouragement to do more. That's why you get such a hard time here. You are willing to inject religion into political discourse where it doesn't belong. The only reason this group is here is to keep talk of religion out of GD. Much like the guns forum it's here to provide an outlet for a subject that is uncomfortable to liberals; hence the contentious nature of the debate.

[Leontius]

40. That last sentence is really troubling , Why should liberals be

uncomfortable with religion? Liberalism has always been a tradition that has assumed a position of inclusion and open mindedness and a position of using the best of mans ideas and constructs to advance society. Only by embracing those who are religious and progressive and including their voice against the downward drag of conservatism and opposing it's co opting of religion as wholly it's own can progress be assured. That statement says more about what a certain type of 'liberalism' has become that should serve as a warning to liberals.

[darkstar3]

42. To ensure a truly "big tent", we can welcome religious progressives,

but only by asking them to check their religion at the door.

Why?

Well, to start with, how about the concept of the infidel? The impetus of the Great Commission? The forsaking of all things that are not Godly?

The only way to be inclusive is to drop exclusivity at the door.

[Leontius]

44. So you can welcome religious progressives as long as they

aren't religious, well done. "The only way to be inclusive is to drop exclusivity at the door." Somehow I don't think the irony of that compared to what you say before ending with that registers with you does it.

[darkstar3]

45. Well, either you didn't read the post in its entirety or you didn't care what I said.

My point was that religion itself is exclusive, and that is incompatible with an inclusive party. It's dirt simple.

[Leontius]

46. No I read your entire post and I understand what you say,

it's just that you are wrong. I believe in God you don't. I'm no better than you, you're no better than me as far as that goes . You seem to advocate a point of view that I must drop my belief and accept your non belief as the norm for inclusivity. I don't see it that way. I have no problem accepting you for who you are why is the same consideration not accorded me. Why must I give up something I have that you don't want or have rejected as useless at best to be considered equal to stand beside you as a progressive?

[darkstar3]

47. I said nothing of the sort.

You'll notice I used the word religion. Check your religion at the door. Religion is the external, belief is the internal. I never asked you to abandon your belief, or faith if you'd rather call it that, in order to stand beside me as a progressive. I simply don't believe that religion, which is very much exclusive and regressive, mixes with a progressive group.

Bring your faith, but be sure to remember that it's not what the gathering is about.

[Leontius]

49. Sorry for the miscommunication I use the two words

interchangeably, you keep them more separate in meaning, that's cool no problem.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

62. Very interesting

Some of you guys keep saying, "Oh, you believers just want atheists to shut up," even when that's not what we're saying.

And yet, you say that religious liberals shouldn't express their religion in their secular activities.

[darkstar3]

63. Not secular activities. Governance.

Your religion doesn't belong in everybody's government.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

64. No, but do you find it offensive when

(as I saw in a video) a member of the clergy shows up at Occupy Boston to offer a Eucharist to those who want it or (as in Minneapolis) the Hare Krishnas show up at Occupy Minnesota to provide food (and chant a little)? Is it offensive when a delegation from my church, including some of the clergy, marches in the local Gay Pride parade? Was it offensive when the various religious communities in Portland held a rally in Pioneer Courthouse Square in 1992 against an anti-gay initiative under the title People of Faith Against Bigotry? Was it offensive when the clergy of St. Paul's Cathedral in London told the police that the cathedral didn't need protection from the Occupy London protesters and asked the cops to leave while allowing the protesters to remain?

[darkstar3]

65. Why do you even ask?

It's not offensive when you join with people of other faiths and groups for social causes. It's offensive when those who do so strictly from a religious standpoint try to make it entirely about their religion.

[rrneck]

67. Yes

Why can't you support a good cause as a citizen? Why promote your religion as well?

Or can you not do good works without religion?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

70. You're misreading it

Religion is a group phenomenon. Otherwise, it would be private spirituality.

People who are already Christians who are camping out may appreciate having their clergy come out to support them. In the video I saw, the priest invited anyone who wanted to to take Communion. In the churches I know of, that is a signal to Christians of other denominations that they are welcome, too. It's assumed that atheists and other non-Christians wouldn't be interested, but non-Episcopal Christians might wonder if they're allowed, so it's a reassurance for them. (If they're clergy didn't come out to support the protesters, you'd probably say, "See, the churches are on the side of the bankers.")

The Hare Krishnas in downtown Minneapolis show their support by providing food. If you don't want their literature or to join their chanting, you just say "No thank you." I've found in numerous encounters over the years that they don't press you if you do that.

And of course, since St. Paul's Cathedral is Church of England property, only a member of the clergy would have the authority to tell the police to get lost and allow the protesters to camp out.

Are you so against religion that you can't stand ANY public manifestations of other people's beliefs?

If so, you're the mirror image of the people who want atheists to shut up and go away.

If the Freedom from Religion Foundation or the American Atheists wanted to send groups out to support the protesters, I'd say, "Go for it!" The greater the cross-section of people visible on the scene, the better.

[rrneck]

73. The only people at a political gathering

should be citizens if the United States. Preists, pastors, ministers, rabbis, monks and seers are as out of place as the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders. The right of clergy to deny access to secular law enforcement is an absurd throwback from the middle ages.

People gather to demand a redress of greviences from government because they are citizens, not as members of some special interest group. Offering communion and chanting sound benign but if you approve of that then you have to approve of huge astroturf campaigns by fundamentalist Christians against GLBT rights. The concept of corporate personhood applies to religious organizations too.

The myopia associated with religious practice (we're the true believers, the others don't count) makes the involvement of religion in politics especially dangerous. Don't believe me? You just exhibited that myopia yourself. We have a first amendment because of the horrors that myopia caused throughout history.

Using peoples spirituality to focus political action gives religion political power. That's unconstitutional; and for good reason. You'd scream bloody murder if Haliburton fed people with their logo plastered all over the place or housed thousands of conservative protesters in one of their facilities.

Your defensiveness is quite revealing. Why would you assume I hate religion because I want it kept out of politics?

Liberal churches are struggling for a growing share of a shrinking market. The conservative fundamentalists are winning cultural marketshare and will continue to do so. Let the right wing use religion to rally the troops. Liberals have long since left that tool behind. For us its just a wedge issue that causes contention among the ranks.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

74. Hey, if the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders or the cast of Glee or some Somalis from

a local mosque wanted to protest as a group, I'd say "Welcome to the big tent!"

A single clergy person showing up to give Communion as a way of supporting the protesters who want such support--and only those who want such support, by the way-- is in no way "Astroturfing."

No one is trying to turn this into a "Christian" protest.

But I bet a lot of posters on this board would be asking snidely, "Why aren't the churches supporting the protesters?" if, say, the clergy of St. Paul's had allowed the police to clear protesters off its steps.

[rrneck]

76. If the priest really wanted to further

the political objective he'd show up in street clothes and offer something more useful than unleavened bread. Offering communion is just feeding off the political energy of others to promote the church. That's the kind metooism that eventually allows the clergy to masquerade as intercessors between the people and their government. There are enough lobbyist groups getting rich pushing special interest agendas.

Religion in politics is a wedge issue that will shoot the left right in the foot. For every priest offering communion there is: a) an organization behind him with a stake in marketshare and b) a much bigger and better funded organization fighting for that same marker share on the other side of the aisle.

Liberalism was born of the enlightenment which refuted established religion. Have you heard of the First Amendment? Just because you feel some way about some product that doesn't mean it should be dragged into the political arena.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

77. And the first amendment means that priests have the right to offer Communion

to anyone they want. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed. How are they hurting you or any other secular protester by doing something among themselves if you are really secure in your own worldview?

You know, I really don't like the way that the Hare Krishnas require members to give up all contact with the people from their former lives (even cloistered Catholic monastics are allowed to receive visits from family members), but I'm glad that they're supporting Occupy MN by supplying some of the vegan food that the organizers have requested. So what if they chant and drum? It's their First Amendment right, and I can ignore them as background noise.

One of the great weaknesses of the Left in this country--one that I saw when I was active in the nuclear freeze and anti-intervention movements in the 1980s--was that certain people wanted to define who was "pure" enough to participate in the movement or who was doing it the right way or the wrong way or who wasn't emphasizing the proper things or saying things using the right terminology. It was all, "You say that the proper position is X, when the only correct position is X'." It may be a function of Leftists being more intellectual than Rightists, but it's a real time waster and a drag on progress, not to mention something that prevents broadening the movement.

One of the reasons the right wing has been so successful is that people who normally hate one another's guts unite for common goals. The Mormons and the Catholics unite on the abortion issue, despite disagreeing on just about everything else. The Libertarians and the megachurch types and the Old Money Blue Bloods unite on lowering taxes. It's as if one point of agreement is enough to make you an ally.

The Left has a regrettable tendency to say that one point of disagreement makes you an outsider.

[rrneck]

78. Um

Dividing up into little groups to celebrate our individual practice of faith is, well, divisive. The OWS protests are about economic parity, not Ecumenism. That's why its so hard to get liberals to pull together. They always bring their own pet cause with them instead of putting aside differences to pull together on one issue.

In case you haven't noticed, the involvement of religion in government is a serious problem in this country. One of the cornerstones of that damaging ideology is that religion should have a free hand to involve itself whenever it wants on the name of "first amendment freedom" and government is precluded from interference on those same grounds. You just made the fundy right wing's case for them.

OWS is a political action. It is the citizens of the United States exercising their First Amendment right to gather together and demand a redress of greviences. Religion simply has no place there.

Would you like to see Haliburton or Exxon there feeding people and giving away tee shirts? Or let's make it easier if you want. What if a Fundy megachurch decided there was money to be made supporting OWS? Would you want to see them there?

It isn't about faith or gender or sexual orientation or disabilities or any other identity politics issue. Its about the equitable distribution of national recources. It's about money. And anybody that shows up there in any capacity other than that of a citizen of this country is there to get a cut for his or her special interest organization. And those are the people, I don't care who they are, who are ruining this country.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

80. If some a fundie megachurch decided that it was on the side of the 99%,

I'd welcome them, with the clear understanding that they were there to support the movement and any of their own members who were involved, not to preach or hand out tracts.

It's unlikely that a megachurch would show up but not impossible, especially if the economy gets so bad that even the exurbanites notice.

The cause is economic justice. Anyone from anywhere who supports that should be welcome, no matter what their other worldviews are.

And the priest who administered Communion in Boston was doing that to provide spiritual support for people who wanted it, just as some people provide other kinds of support: food, blankets, teach-ins, entertainment. I can't expect you to understand what having Communion would mean to someone from a sacramental religion, but it would be meaningful to them. Others are welcome to bring in imams, lamas, or lecturers on cosmology, whatever provides meaningful emotional support to them.

[rrneck]

81. "...not there to preach..."

What do you think communion is?

There is no justice in politics. Politics is the art of who gets what.

There is no discernable difference between religious faith and brand loyalty. Why do you think the most successful churches are run like corporations? That priest at that rally was advertising for his organization. Your attitude would allow every corporate entanglement under the sun to infect the political process. Just because religion is important to you doesn't mean we have to let every corporation that wants to feed off the political process. You don't seem to understand that if you let one in you have to let them all in.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

82. You know, many times I have seen atheists on this board say that

Christians just want them to shut up and go back into the closet.

It looks as if you want the same for Christians. (And no, before somebody pipes up and says that I'm "claiming persecution"--which has become as much of a cliché on this site as "wanting a pony" is in GD-P---I'm not. I'm just saying apply the same standards to yourself as you do to other people.)

And as for "letting them all in"? Anyone who shares the goals is welcome. If there's a benevolent corporate type who wants to supply hooded fleece sweatshirts for the protesters, I'd say yes, as long as he'd be willing to donate them without a corporate logo. We need to find ways to bring people in, not to leave them out. Movements grow by bringing people in and by making it clear that you don't have to be any one thing as long as you share the main goals.

[rrneck]

83. We don't need to bring people in.

We need to bring CITIZENS in. Nowadays corporations are people too.Corporations (which includes Religion) bring with them their own vested interest. They profit from your civic duty. The Tea Party invited in big business and you see how their "grass roots" organization turned out. And they're supposed to be on our side.

The richest 1%, represented by corporate interests, have managed to co opt every popular movement and trend for the last half century. What do you think is wrong with the Democratic party now? Why do you think they're so ineffectual? Where do you think the unions have gone? Corporate involvement in politics.

If you want people to join you why crawl into bed with the same 1% that controls corporate America?

[Thats my opinion]

56. Good!. If that point ever gets heard on rt,

this forum just might have a positive contribution to make to a rational dialogue.
We might find it a thousand other places. The chance of finding it on rt is modest indeed.

[rrneck]

61. Please see post #59. nt

[rrneck]

59. Just so we're on the same page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as hereditary status, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism
Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action. Progressivism is often viewed by some conservatives, constitutionalists, and libertarians to be in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies.

Liberal and Progressive are used more or less interchangeably since both support accelerated social change. Progressivism focuses more directly on that change through government. What many liberal Christians fail to realize is that even though their religion may engage in good works in the community like feeding and clothing the poor, they are in actuality furthering the conservative/libertarian cause. Helping the poor is the province of government and when churches of any stripe take over the job government is supposed to do, even if they are good works, it's just another form of privatization. Grover Norquist just loves liberal churches because they compete for the responsibility of government with the much wealthier conservative churches in the marketplace just like the producers of any other product. They will eventually lose market share because the conservatives will score all the fat government contracts. And even if they don't, then liberal churches will be involved in government up to their eyeballs and that always ends badly. That's why we have a First Amendment.

While I agree that liberals have always been willing to use "best of mans ideas and constructs to advance society", I don't necessarily consider Christianity to be among that number. It seems to me that the christian religion always seems to find its way to the seat of power and exploits its position there. Of course it's quite possible that any other religion would do the same in the context of the wealth we have garnered from the exploitation of people and natural resources, but if it's not a pernicious influence religion has certainly proven itself to be just as susceptible to the corrupting influence of wealth and consumption as any other social institution.

The only allegiance that should be brought to the political theater is liberal nationalism. All other allegiances should be left at the door. We should be dedicated to using government to equitably distribute resources and responsibilities among all Americans regardless of any other social relationship or status. There should be no God or religion in politics. Politics is the art of who gets what. When religion gets involved the most fervently faithful seem to always get the most to the detriment of all.

Under no circumstances should we use political power to legitimize religion in government in an effort to defeat those who disagree with our politics. Some of the most barbaric outrages against the human race started exactly that way. By "embracing those who are religious and progressive" you associate religion with progressivism, an ideology that expressly intends to use government to further its goals. When you associate religion with progressivism, you associate religion with the exercise of power. Just ask yourself how many times throughout history that ended really badly.

[darkstar3]

60. Well said.

[trotsky]

68. So well said that it's being ignored, of course.

Theists seem to scurry away from the good stuff.

[trotsky]

39. We are constantly told that religion is the superior way.

You yourself have said so in this very forum - and I quote: "None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith."

Now you're saying that religion is no better than any other human institution.

Odd how you could contradict yourself so blatantly like that. Then again, saying that non-religious ethical systems are inferior to religious ones is a rather belligerent naysaying attack on non-believers, so I guess you get what you give.

[deacon_sephiroth]

22. unrec / alert n/t

[cleanhippie]

24. So if I find a bible passage that I think relates to an issue, does that them make it

A religious issue?

[laconicsax]

35. Apparently so. n/t

[David Sky]

41. Yes, egotistical followers of the Bible seem to want TOTAL CONTROL over

any historical event in the universe. Have you seen them talk about comets? Talk about Earthquakes? Talk about the rise of crime, the increase in alcoholism, drug abuse, blacks taking positions of authority, people in gay relationships, they have an opinion that is the RIGHT opinion on PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING that happens in the Universe!

Occupy Wall Street, and the 300 events around the world this past weekend? SIMPLE!!!! GOD did it!

Call it ego, call it omniscience.......they got it ALL covered!!!!

[NMMNG]

43. Funny how they're always quick to distance themselves

from any negative event (clinic bombings, shootings, beatings) even if the offenders are screaming religious dogma or scripture as they commit the act.

[David Sky]

48. Oh right!!!! I probably should have mentioned the clinic bombings instead of

the "Got mit uns" Nazi motto. Some people think when I bring up Nazi Germany and their love of Christianity and white people... I'm going over their "quota" for factual history.

But how many doctors, nurses, other innocent victims, all in the name of "Christians" ? I should have talked about those Christians. Americans, no less!

[Leontius]

50. In the interest of "factual history" , 'Got mit uns' is not a nazi motto

it predates National Socialism by more than one hundred years. It goes back to the Napoleonic War era.

[cleanhippie]

52. But it was on the buttons and buckles of Nazi uniforms...

:shrug:





I guess it WAS a Nazi motto.

[Leontius]

53. Study the origin of the motto and the evolution of German

military uniforms and get back to me with the results. If you find that they originate with National Socialism I will gladly change my understanding of Prussian/German military traditions that have evolved over what is now four centuries of history.

[cleanhippie]

55. So you are saying that even though Nazis had that slogan on their uniforms, it wasn't a Nazi slogan?

am I reading you right?

[David Sky]

69. Nit pickers, all of them, still don't like how Christians were the slaugherers of

so many in Germany, Poland, and other nations.

They want to pick a nit about the origin of a slogan/motto, OKAY!



"Gott Mit Uns (God With Us) Nazi Buckle

Enlisted Man's German Army belt buckle (Stamped steel, 1937 pattern, made by "R S & S" for Richard Sieper & Sohne Ludenscheid). Photo from the German Militaria Catalog (their web site no longer exists)."

http://nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm

[Thats my opinion]

54. i get arodund lot more than you do in Christian circles

and I just don't know these people you characterize. Why not respond to what Christians say here, or that that limit the bigotry too much.

[darkstar3]

57. No, you've already proven that you don't. Your experience has been remarkably insular,

as proven by your own words.

[cleanhippie]

66. *yawn*

Blatant hypocrisy.

[David Sky]

71. Turn on your cable TV machine and find the religious channels there,...

they ALL are Christian, for the most part.

They go on and on about everything under the sun and beyond, (all the way to the comets) and relate it all to Christ dying on the cross. Earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, people on the streets of Egypt last spring, people on the streets of NYC today.
Somehow, it's all about THEIR god and THEIR Christ, and THEIR Bible.

If you haven't taken a look at any of those shows, you're in for a great laugh!

[Thats my opinion]

75. TV religion is a perversion for the sake of money.

So accuse me of the NTS fallacy. I plead guilty. TV religionists are charlatans who get very rich pandering to the already superstitious. Don't waste your time looking at that nonsense. Why not try the web site of such groups as the National Council of Churches, or a score other reputable Christian or interfaith bodies that have a very different perspective.

www.ncccusa.org

[trotsky]

79. Here's where you need to deal with some cognitive dissonance.

On the one hand, you repeatedly claim that the simplistic view of god is simply not held by any of the Christians you are aware of, and you often boast about the extent of your Christian circles.

But now on the other hand, you admit that TV preachers can get very rich appealing to those who believe in this simplistic god. If there are so few of them, how can the preachers get so rich?

I do not expect a reply, but I am perfectly willing to let this sit as yet another example of your doublespeak.

[Deep13]

58. If one views this national economic fiasco through a Christian lens...

...the overturning of the money-changers' tables and the camel/eye-of-needle speech are inescapable. I tend to view it through a Gramscian/Marxist lens, although I'm really not a Marxist since I don't accept complete economic determinism.

Haven't been to a OWS-type event. Most popular protests I have been to were decidedly non-religious. I was marching in a local parade for Kerry in '04 and one guy said he just left church and now was going to march for Kerry and Jesus Christ.