Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"The Doublethink of Liberal Theology "

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 06:57 PM
Original message
"The Doublethink of Liberal Theology "
Edited on Sun Oct-23-11 06:59 PM by NMMNG
I was a Christian for 20 years and I did the doublethink too. I think the increasing cognitive dissonance over it helped me in my journey back to my natural state of atheism.


The Doublethink of Liberal Theology




<snip>

I’m not trying to alienate my friends that adhere to liberal Christian theology, but as much as I think fundamental Christian theology is riddled with plot holes, contradictions, morally vacant teachings, cognitive dissonance and doublethink; the liberal version of the religion has these detractions as well. Why? Once you start admitting that the Biblical stories that were once held as absolute truth are not historical, are instead allegorical, and admit that certain tenets are actually harmful if not immoral; then what do you have to stand on? What is the foundation of the belief? What is the rock? If the Christian belief system is based on scripture; which it is, then once pieces are removed from that scripture by discarding them or changing them to suit modern morals (that evolved away from biblical morals via secular reasoning, thank you), then the basis of your belief system is weakened. It becomes more and more unstable and untenable. I have previously likened this to a Jenga game. The outdated and undesirable blocks are pulled out from the tower, altered or explained away via convoluted rationalizations otherwise known as “theology” and the whole thing starts to sway. Pretty soon it’s going to fall over.

I can hear the apologist line now saying I am throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Well...yeah. When talking about religious scripture it is an all or nothing proposition if you are claiming an ultimate universal truth. If Adam and Eve didn’t exist then where does Original Sin originate? If there is no Original Sin then why did Jesus need to die on the cross? If Jesus didn’t need to die on the cross, then YHWH really is an immoral monster. It’s a domino effect.

<snip>

The intellectual dishonesty arises when in any conversation that turns to belief it is perfectly OK to question an atheist or other beliefs, but any question of their religion turns into a circular argument of soft philosophy that can be used to justify anything! There is a readymade excuse for any critique. It’s all allegory. It’s just parables. It’s not meant to be taken literally. All religion could be correct. None of this is defensible and yet none of it is provably wrong. It’s all invisible pink unicorns and teapots in orbit. They have gone in the opposite direction of fundies that hang onto every last word of the Bible as literal truth and ignore obvious contradictory facts. The liberal Christians just make it up as they go along because why not?

<snip>

Maybe this. Maybe that. The above scriptural quotes would disagree. Unless they too are only allegory. How much of scripture is allegory? Is it allegory if Jesus “said” that the only way to God is through Him? How much is considered true? Apparently for liberal Christians only what your reason allows you to find palatable with minimum cognitive dissonance. That’s when the doublethink kicks in.

<snip>


:popcorn:
Refresh | +2 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. This article really brings up some tough questions for liberal believers.
I can see why they don't want to even acknowledge them, let alone provide some answers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. It does
I'm surprised I haven't had, at bare minimum, the customary accusations that I'm "attacking" people's deeply held beliefs. They'll probably surface at some point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Why be surprised? You are pretty much parroting the same
commentaries atheists and skeptics have been making for generations. Nothing new there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Maybe because they never get adequate answers
Edited on Sun Oct-23-11 08:37 PM by NMMNG
:shrug:

And the article isn't mine, though I agree with the author.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Only in response to the ever repetitive claims made by believers.
Your posts are a case in point.


A prime example.

Proof positive.

QED
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. All theology is nothing but trying to rationalize bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. By are you so intolerant and close minded?
Just thought I would post it before someone else does! I think we know who the usual suspects are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-11 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #7
17. LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Thats my opinion Donating Member (804 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-11 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
26. now there is a good example of a well thought out rational statement
No wonder r/t is a sorry joke to most DUers
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
8. This is why I'm Girardian. Mimetic theory admits
that the places where the Bible presents God as violent really just cover up and sacralize human violence, among other things. My liberal Christian friends cling to ideas I can no longer accept.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ChadwickHenryWard Donating Member (692 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #8
35. If the parts of the Bible where god is violent and petty are not valid sources for knowledge
about god, what are the parts of the bible where god is otherwise?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sal316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
9. There are 3 responses to challenges to one's faith structure.
1. Fundamentalism
2. Atheism
3. Living in the tension.

The first two require minimal intellectualism. The third is where true faith lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
darkstar3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. There are two kinds of people in this world:
Edited on Sun Oct-23-11 09:50 PM by darkstar3
1. Those who oversimplify.
2. Those who actually know what the fuck is going on.
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sal316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-11 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #10
22. ..and those who oversimplify...
Are guilty of using logical fallacy to prove their point like, oh, false alternatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
laconicsax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. You mean like the faith that allows people to hold wildly contradictory beliefs?
Or do you mean the faith that allows people to readily act in opposition to their alleged beliefs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Humanist_Activist Donating Member (603 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Faith starts where critical thinking stops...
it seems to me that "True Faith" however you wish to define it is the one that requires minimal intellectualism, in addition, who are you to question fundamentalist faith? What makes it not a "True Faith"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. No
The first two require minimal intellectualism. The third is where true faith lives.

True faith requires intellectual dishonesty. I speak from experience.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. That is the most dishonest example of intellectual cowardice I have heard in a very long time.
Edited on Sun Oct-23-11 11:32 PM by Deep13
Atheism is entirely consistent with known facts. For example nothing about atheism contradicts evolution, cosmology, sociology, and functional idea or ethics or morality. Religion contradicts all those things. One point of view is right and the other is wrong.

Living in tension means being unwilling to admit your faith structure is simple untenable because you are afraid of the implications.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Thats my opinion Donating Member (804 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-11 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #15
27. Better if you speak for yourself. I can accept that as who you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-11 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Better stop trying to shut me up.
That seems to be your M.O. when you lose an argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sal316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-11 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #15
29. So, it has to be all A or all B.
There's no room for anything else is what you're saying.

Because claiming such an intellectually sophomoric position means the foundation of it is that humanity's understanding of God must equate to the ANE culture's understanding and anything past the 1st or 2nd Century (or even 4th/5th if you start with the Canon) doesn't count.

It's a ridiculous position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. It is all A. Not a question of what it HAS to be.
It doesn't HAVE to be anything.

Not sure what you mean by ANE culture. But there is no understanding of god, only imagined understandings of gods. How can you claim to understand something when you have consistently failed to show it exists? The ramblings of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and the rest of them are all based on guess work with no basis in fact.

Sophmoric is continuing to insist Santa Claus is real after your folks admitted he isn't. Stop living in "tension" and accept reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sal316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. You hold the mirror image of fundamentalism.
And if you want to discount Augustine, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc., then you'll also have to discount

- The pilgrims and the puritans
- The colonial preachers who rallied the faithful to the revolution
- The abolitionist preachers
- The social gospel movement of the late 19th/early 20th century
- Women's suffrage
- Dr. King and the religious civil rights leaders

But, since you stick to a literalist interpretation...

- Slave owners
- The Confederate South
- The Klan
- Fred Phelps
- Pat Robertson
- Falwell and the religious right

...are all valid because they read scripture for exactly what it says and no more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-11 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. Insisting on facts is not the mirror image of fundamentalism.
"And if you want to discount Augustine, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc., then you'll also have to discount

"- The pilgrims and the puritans"

I do dismiss their religious beliefs.

"- The colonial preachers who rallied the faithful to the revolution"

Wait, what? I'd be curious know their theological justification since the NT says to obey ones master and to obey Christian masters especially well.

"- The abolitionist preachers"

Admire their humanity, dismiss their theology which, in point of fact, directly contradicts their purported religion.

"- The social gospel movement of the late 19th/early 20th century"

Yup.

"- Women's suffrage"

What the hell does THAT have to do with Christianity? Christians were the most vocal and persistent opponents of women's suffrage. The NT pretty much tells women to STFU. Christianity and the other Abrahamic religious have to be the most misogynistic ideologies of all time. Women's suffrage happened despite Christianity, not because of it.

"- Dr. King and the religious civil rights leaders"

The odds that an anti-segregation activist was motivated by Christianity were about even. Those in power who agreed with segregation to a man justified it based on Christianity. As with women's rights, civil rights happened despite Christianity, not because of it. King was a Christian minister, to be sure, and he relied on the lingua franca of the Bible for metaphores. But his message was secular, humanist, socialist even. King and the abolishionist preachers are examples of people who put humanity before theology and such people occur far to infrequently.


"But, since you stick to a literalist interpretation...

- Slave owners
- The Confederate South
- The Klan
- Fred Phelps
- Pat Robertson
- Falwell and the religious right

...are all valid because they read scripture for exactly what it says and no more."

No, they are not valid for the simple reason that the scripture they rely on is not valid. Christianity (and the others) are based on a fantasy. But they are all canonical, and far more so than eccumenical Christians. The only point where I think they deviate from canonical Christianity is in greed and possibly hypocrisy, both of which are pretty generally condemned in the Bible, if not by subsequent followers who are always eager to accomodate Earthly power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sal316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-11 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #15
30. Actually, let me correct myself.
While the ANE culture did lack understanding in science, physics, etc., their spirituality was much more advanced.

You see, they lived in the tension between mythos and logos and understood that there were multiple levels of understanding to the stories passed down through oral tradition.

Fundamental literalism really didn't come into vogue until the confluence of two events, the sacking of Rome in the 16th Century and the invention of the printing press.

So, you see, it's actually the all true/all false position of the literalists that's the aberration, not liberal Christianity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. You come pretty close to conceding that the Bible, Koran, Talmud etc. have no real meaning.
All that is fine for literary criticism, but by saying people can read into it what they want, it deprives it of any authoritative meaning. At that point I have to ask in what way is it a holy book? History shows at least parts of these texts were taken as authoritative for centuries before printing.

I'm not taking about fundamentalism. I'm talking about the basic factual assertions of religion, the main one being that there is a god of some kind. That proposition is either true or false. A universe governed by supernatural deities is fundamentally different than one with out them. For the thesis to be correct, the antithesis must be wrong. And until that question is answered in a way that does not require faith, any myths based on the assumption that gods are real is speculative. Besides the counter-indications are such that we can pretty definitively conclude that gods are nothing but figments of human imagination. The remaining gaps in our knowledge are simply too small to accomodate gods.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sal316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. No, I'm not.
It would just seem that way to those who see the world as being only black or white.

"A universe governed by supernatural deities is fundamentally different than one with out them."

How so? Do you have empirical evidence to back this up?


And I did say that literalism came into vogue after that time, not that it didn't exist beforehand. It just was a minority position until science brought the printing press.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-11 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. The counter-indications of divinity are numerous...
...and Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris do far more thorough jobs explaining them than I have time for here. Suffice it to say that the universe and especially the world would be entirely inexplicable if we were to assume that a benevolent, powerful, creative force were behind it. A naturally occurring universe and naturally occurring life require no such assumption. We know for a fact that god had no part in the development of terrestrial life. Evolution, depending at once on random chance and the pitiless editing power of natural selection is an unintelligent, deterministic process. It could not work the way we see it if it were being directed. And if god has nothing to do with the development of life, in what way is he god? (BTW, there are similar explanations for how life got started, so there is no refuge there.) The only way liberal believers get around that is by constantly changing definitions to accomodate new information that invariably excludes god from this area or that.

It's not a question of how I see the world. It's a question of how the world really is. Questions of existence are black and white. Sometimes, if something exists a little, then it exists. If there is one drop of water on a planet, then water exists on that planet. Other things require a minimum level of existence to exist. A car does not exist unless there is enough of it to function as a car. God is of the latter variety. As his functions get whittled away those who understand the implications of scientific discovery, at some point those functions drop below the threshold of what a god is. My own view is that happened with the discovery of natural selection. Once it became clear that we were not created, god outlived his usefulness. Think about it. In classical times, god lived in heaven which was literally the sky and hell was underground. All weather, geologic events, diseases, the harvest, reproduction, morality etc. etc. were all run by god. As time wore on discoveries replaced divine explanations for natural ones, god's purvue became smaller and increasingly theoretical. Now there is nothing for him to do at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ChadwickHenryWard Donating Member (692 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. That's some very interesting history you have there.
Accusations of "heresy" and "heretics" go back to the very beginning of Christians scripture. The idea that there is only one true interpretation of the text and that those that hold a different view are fundamentally wicked is as old as Christianity itself.

Also, I'm interested in the "confluence" of two events that occurred eighty years apart.

Overall, I think you are presenting a false dichotomy between those who believe literally in the text and those who don't. You are leaving out the vast majority of people, those who don't think the bible is a source of knowledge and truth at all. What about Muslims, Hindus, Parsi, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Shintos, and aboriginal animists/pagans? Do they reject Christianity because they are literalists? You are completely disregarding the entire spectrum of human belief and custom that lies outside of your own holy book. These people are neither liberal theologians nor those damned literalists - they don't regard the Christian Bible as a source of knowledge at all, and it likely didn't enter into their religiously formative experiences in any way.

For my part, I am not an atheist because of what's in the bible. It doesn't come down to what is in your text. There is a whole world of views out there, and yours is not the end-all be-all of the discussion. In truth, it doesn't really matter what the bible says. The evidence just doesn't stack up for the god hypothesis. The universe is far older, far more vast, and far grander than we knew when we came up with this "God" notion, and it doesn't cut it anymore. The human race is of vanishingly small significance and the sightings of god resemble simple projection too much. In short, it doesn't matter whether your god really, truly murdered the whole world in a flood, or incinerated two cities in a towering inferno, or commanded Joshua and David to commit genocide and crimes against humanity. There is so much more to the discussion than that, and to insist that atheists have an overly narrow view on those insignificant points is, I think, to miss the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
laconicsax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-11 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. Oh, and about that tension...
Two cognitions are said to be dissonant if one cognition follows from the opposite of another. What happens to people when they discover dissonant cognitions? The answer to this question forms the basic postulate of Festinger¹s theory. A person who has dissonant or discrepant cognitions is said to be in a state of psychological dissonance, which is experienced as unpleasant psychological tension. This tension state has drivelike properties that are much like those of hunger and thirst. When a person has been deprived of food for several hours, he/she experiences unpleasant tension and is driven to reduce the unpleasant tension state that results. Reducing the psychological sate of dissonance is not as simple as eating or drinking however.
http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/stephens/cdback.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-11 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #9
18. Holding wildly contradictory beliefs is a sign of lack of abstract thinking ability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-11 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. It's also Doublethink in the classic Orwellian sense
Thereby proving the point of the article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-11 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Yup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-11 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Where do you get that from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-11 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Religion forces a person to either suffer from cognitive dissonance or...
...reject reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Sal316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-11 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Nice fallacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
14. I finally had to admit that my beliefs...
...or rather what I wanted to believe just did not square with reality. Either God loves us and is watching out for us (badly) or else we evolved by natural selection. Either faith was a virtue and doubt a vice or else investigation and verification (doubt) was the virtue and reliance on authority was a fallacy. Both cannot be true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Thats my opinion Donating Member (804 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-11 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #14
40. watch your logical inferences.
Either/or does not give you an exhaustive category. What bout neither/nor? What about three or three hundred other possibilities. What if there is growth and evolution in religious thought? If as ine every other rational discipline, what is said in one generation is refined or even discarded in the next? That is how science works. So Jesus said, "You have heard it said of old, but I say to you....."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-24-11 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
24. Liberals are teh evil!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Thats my opinion Donating Member (804 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-11 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
39. When you stop using reason
you are sunk already.
Both higher rand lower biblical criticism, and the understand that religion, like everything else, is evolutionary is critical to understanding . I doubt you would take the same line about any other discipline, history, science, for instance, and hold that to question any of its past statements nullifies the whole thing. This is why we have Biblical scholars. Why not try reading what is really being said in America's best seminaries and journals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-11 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Let me ask you something.
Edited on Wed Oct-26-11 07:04 PM by cleanhippie
Do you believe that jesus was the human form of god, that jesus performed supernatural miracles, that jesus was killed on a crucifix and that jesus was literally resurrected from the dead?

Its a simple yes/no type of question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 22nd 2024, 03:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC