My Religion/Theology Pledge

[Goblinmonger]

I take the following pledge to govern my posting in R/T. I encourage you to, as well.

I, Goblinmonger, do solemnly swear to treat each person's beliefs or lack of beliefs with respect. If someone tells me that they believes something or doesn't believe something, I will take them at their word and treat that as their belief or lack of belief system. I will not attempt to tell them that they actually do believe something different than what they have indicated.

[ret5hd]

1. Do you really believe you can do that? i don't believe you!

i kid, i kid!

[vicman]

2. I solmenly promise

to treat other people's superstitious beliefs with all the respect they deserve.

[pnwmom]

6. And I promise to treat smart alecks with the respect they deserve. n/t

[TallahasseeGrannie]

43. you are very naughty

[Goblinmonger]

44. Grannie called you naughty

Grannie called you naughty
Grannie called you naughty

I bet you ain't getting any cookies and milk today.

[BOSSHOG]

3. A noble and easily maintained pledge, however

when some religiously insane son of a bitch wants to codify his/her beliefs and amend our constitution so we all have to believe what he/she believes then my other pledge of supporting and defending the constitution against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC trumps all. Those who believe in the bible and want to replace the constitution with it are the number domestic enemy in this country today. I take extremely seriously my oath of enlistment, even though I'm retired I consider myself still under oath. I strongly suggest any "christians" who want to fuck with my constitution believe my resolve relative to its defense.

[wryter2000]

4. I don't think you'll find any of those Fristians here

I doubt anyone here believes this country is based on Christianity. DUers respect the Constitution.

[Goblinmonger]

8. Oh, don't get me wrong

my tolerance for other's beliefs ends at two specific points. If they knock on my door to convert me or if they try to legislate their beliefs. Then it is no longer just a question of tolerance.

And I did not say that tolerance meant not questioning them when they put their beliefs out there.

[BOSSHOG]

10. Roger that Teammate

I think your pledge is an outstanding American idea, but it would not be appreciated by those who truly "believe;" who allegedly live the bible daily. I doubt they would offer you the same courtesy.

[Goblinmonger]

11. That is clear

from a multitude of posts in Religion/Theology. Just trying to get people to put their money where their mouth is. Or their tolerance where their faith is. Or something.

[arwalden]

5. Of Course! Absolutely! What A Splendid Idea!

:thumbsup:

[BurtWorm]

7. I, Burt Worm, do solemnly swear, so help me

.

And I would expect anyone to call me on it, if I misrepresent their beliefs, as I will call them on it (whether they take the pledge or not) if they misrepresent my beliefs or lack thereof.

:patriot:

[Goblinmonger]

14. Thank you for joining in

Several people here go to great lengths to justify misrepresenting other's beliefs. Kind of strange, actually.

[beam me up scottie]

24. Indeed.

Some have been at it for years.

[trotsky]

9. A great pledge, GM.

Sign me up too!

[salvorhardin]

12. I thought this was obvious

But okiedokie. Good idea. Count me in.

[Goblinmonger]

13. I did, too

but seems some people, who haven't chimed in yet, don't think so. Plus, just go on GD and say that Bush is a Christian because he says so and see what happens.

[arwalden]

15. I'm Afraid...

... what will happen?

[salvorhardin]

16. Does the phrase 'crossing the streams' mean anything to you? n/t

[arwalden]

18. Not Really.

Sorry.

[salvorhardin]

19. Sorry. I was referencing the movie Ghostbusters

Egon: There’s something very important I forgot to tell you.
Peter: What?
Egon: Don’t cross the streams.
Peter: Why?
Egon: It would be bad.
Peter: I’m fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean bad?
Egon: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.

[Goblinmonger]

20. I got it

actually a pretty apt comparison to what would/does happen in GD with the "Bush ain't no Christian" threads.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

46. More's the pity

(Bush being "Christian.") I don't recognize or understand his Christianity. But I think we are what we say we are.

Hmmm. I am 25, and a hot babe.

Is it working?

[catbert836]

17. Excellent idea.

I shall take the same pledge:

I, catbert836, do solemnly swear to treat each person's beliefs or lack of beliefs with respect. If someone tells me that they believes something or doesn't believe something, I will take them at their word and treat that as their belief or lack of belief system. I will not attempt to tell them that they actually do believe something different than what they have indicated.

[JerseygirlCT]

21. Works just fine for me. Thanks! nt

[beam me up scottie]

22. I pledge to do the same.

A person's faith is personal and should be off limits.

Religion, on the other hand, is not.

[varkam]

26. A worthy distinction n/t

[TallahasseeGrannie]

45. Well said

[beam me up scottie]

23. Nominated.

A marvelous idea.

[pnwmom]

25. Sorry, I'm confused. Is this about respecting people's different beliefs,

or is it about saying that -- contrary to all appearances -- Bush is a Christian?

[beam me up scottie]

27. I'm not the op but I'll try.

Glad to see we haven't scared you off and you're still posting in here, by the way.:D


It is about respecting religious beliefs and lack of them.

The reference to bush not being a christian is an ongoing debate between some christians and some atheists on DU.

The atheists, of which I am one, don't agree that christians can disown bad christians just because they're not good people.

We use the broad definition of christian- that being belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God.

We think no one can know whether or not another believes in the christian god.

Therefore when a person says they're a christian, we have to take their word for it.

We take offense when christians claim bush is not good enough to be a christian, the inference being that he is a non-christian and therefore less ethical.

Many christians think that a christian must follow all of Christ's teachings in order to qualify.

This raises the question about how different christians interpret the bible and their conflicting perceptions about what God wants from his followers.

It's one of those topics that gets rehashed frequently.

If anyone would like to correct my interpretation or add anything, please do.

I think many christians never realized that some of us were offended by the claims that bush is a non-christian, and this debate has actually helped them see our side.

[pnwmom]

29. I guess the flip side of this is that many liberal Christians hate

that fundamentalists have co-opted the name "Christian." When I was growing up, if you were Christian you were Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, etc. At some point, however, nondenominational fundamentalists started to call themselves simply "Christian" -- with the implication that non-fundamentalist denominations were NOT (really Christian, that is).

To make matters worse, we more liberal Christians find ourselves defending our religious beliefs to some agnostics/atheists, etc. who derive all their views about what Christianity is from fundamentalists. I can't tell you how many times I've had to listen to atheists mocking Christians for taking the Bible literally -- when most of us do not. (Non-denominational Christians are only about 7% of Christians, according to Gallup. Even when you add in literalists from some of the denominations, it's still a minority of believers that take the Bible literally.)

Reading your post over again, it appears to me that non-Christians (including atheists) have no more wish to be associated with Bush than liberal Christians do!

I agree with you -- and I think most Christians accept -- that Christians are just as sinful as anyone else. (Or maybe that is the Catholic still in me.)

My guess about Bush is that he is as sincere about being a Christian as he is about anything else. But his twisted mind twists everything that it touches.

[beam me up scottie]

30. I agree.

If you hang around here long enough, you will see DU atheists calling out other atheists for broad brushing.

I grew up with liberal believers, my introduction to fundamentalism was like a slap in the face. None of my friends took the bible literally.

Hell, quite a few of them took anthropology courses with me.

I'm glad that you guys are trying to take your religion back.

The damn neocons corrupt everything they touch.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

48. Yes, I remember when I was an Episcopalian

and not a "Christian." Now I have to say "Christian" in order to stay current or something. Maybe I'll go back to just Episcopalian.

[pnwmom]

60. Maybe you got tired of explaining to nincompoops that Episcopalians were

Christian.

[okasha]

40. A slightly different interpretation

We take offense when christians claim bush is not good enough to be a christian, the inference being that he is a non-christian and therefore less ethical.

I think there's two definitions at work here. One is that a Christian is someone who believes that "Jesus is the son of God," though there are Christians who do not believe that in any literal sense. (Bishop John Selby Spong, for instance.) The other is that a Christian is someone who models his/her behavior on the teachings of Jesus. Bush is a Christian by the first definition, perhaps; whether he is a Christian by the second is, at best--uhm, debatable.

I do think the second part of your statement is a misreading. It's not that Bush is a "non-christian" and therefore less ethical; it's that he's a bad Christian--one who does not follow the teachings of Jesus while claiming to do so--and therefore less ethical, right along with the Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons, Fred Phelpses and their ilk.

[pnwmom]

61. Yes, I agree. It is very easy for someone to say that he or she "believes"

but much easier to actually follow the words of Jesus.

And, yes, we are all sinners. But some of us are trying harder than others.
And Bush doesn't seem to have a truly compassionate bone in his body.

How can a bad person possibly be a good Christian?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

47. By those parameters

nobody would be a Christian. Nobody lives up to the words of Christ. Just my interpretation.

I think we Christians have to "own" him as our very own cross to bear. He and his chums.

[okasha]

59. I don't think a Christian has to imitate Christ perfectly, Grannie--.

I don't know any Christian who would claim s/he does. But make a good-faith best effort, yes.

[NMMNG]

28. It's about respecting what people claim are their beliefs

Bush claims he is a Christian, e.g., he believes in the tenets of Christianity. Therefore he is considered for all intents and purposes to be what he says, just like any other person, here or anywhere else, who made such a claim.

As much as it may make you uncomfortable, you can't disown him as a Christian just because he's scum. :shrug:

[pnwmom]

31. I'm not disowning him, I'm just saying that his beliefs don't define

mine (or Christianity, in my opinion.)

[pnwmom]

32. I take it back. I am disowning him. : )

Wouldn't it be nice if it were that easy?

[beam me up scottie]

33. Yes.

Yes it would.

But the rest of America would have to do it too, for it to work.:)

[kwassa]

65. Of course Bush can be disowned as a phony Christian

There is no reason I have to respect his or any other persons claims to be Christian.

I think what the OP is asking about is quite different, which is to take a pledge HERE, and in this forum only, to respect the claims of others as to what they believe.

There is nothing in the OP that says that we have to do this in life.

[unschooler]

34. Oh, c'mon, GT. I know you don't really believe that....

;)

[Zhade]

35. I'll accept their word on what they believe.

I'm not obligated to respect their beliefs, however. If it's idiotic (like, say, believing the earth is thousands of years old, or that the myth of Noah's Ark really happened), I'll happily point out why it's dumb.

But I will absolutely allow people to define themselves and their beliefs, since I don't know what's in their head.

[Goblinmonger]

36. That's all my pledge was for

I agree that letting people define themselves is a different issue than not being able to question that which they believe. We should all be able to--hell, I would argue encouraged to--question what others say is true about the world.

I have never gotten mad at someone for questioning my world view. I do get mad when they call me a liar and tell me that isn't what I think.

[Zhade]

38. I believe you, but that's not what you said.

"I, Goblinmonger, do solemnly swear to treat each person's beliefs or lack of beliefs with respect."

There is, of course, no obligation to treat anyone's beliefs with respect - only their right to believe.

Probably just sloppy on your part. :)

[Goblinmonger]

39. Let me explain

I actually thought of addressing this in the OP, but thought it would clutter things up too much so I would wait to see if it became an issue. It has, so see if this makes any sense.

I will treat each person's beliefs with respect. If you have come to a belief, then, for you, it is valid. That respect means that I will not go out of my way to piss on your parade. I do not run into fundy churchs spouting the contraditions in the bible. I do not go to Catholic masses telling them that the pope is a douche bag that protects pedophiles. People deserve my respect to allow them to believe what they want and worship how they want.

There are two instances where I feel I can "not respect" those beliefs. And by "not respect" I mean that I can feel free to point out problems, question seriously what the beliefs are, etc.

1. When you go out of your way to make those beliefs public. As I said above, I don't go into churches trying to confront people. But if you come to my door, I feel free to call you on the bullshit. If you post in a public forum on the internets, you should be ready to defend those beliefs. If you don't want those beliefs questioned or you don't think you should have to defend them, then stay with those that believe what you do and all will be fine. And I'm not talking about wearing a cross, star of david, or some other religious icon. I mean really make it public TO ME. You go out of your way to let ME know EXACTLY what your beliefs are on a specific issue, thing, etc.

2. When you try to legislate based on your beliefs, it's game on. The bullshit going on in SD is religious crap and needs to be called out. The treatment of gays by our governments is also crap and mostly attributable to religion (i.e. someone's beliefs). I don't need to keep quiet in those instances either.

So, anyway, does that make sense? I do not think I am breaking my pledge if I question people's beliefs in those two areas. And even if I question, it doesn't mean I think you shouldn't be able to believe those things, just that you are in the "public sphere" and made your beliefs fair game. If you can't handle the discussion, then don't start one.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

51. Makes sense to me

tg

[Zhade]

52. It's a nice thought, but I can't pretend to respect beliefs I don't.

But of course, IRL, I too don't even go into churches, let alone walk around telling people they're wrong, so by default I afford people respect.

If people bring it up to me, then I'll be honest about my feelings on those beliefs. That's the best I can do - I can't and won't pretend I don't think biblical literalism (e.g.) is mindnumbingly stupid.

[Goblinmonger]

55. I don't think I am saying you should

I don't. That is what I hoped was at the heart of my explanation. Once people put their beliefs in a public forum, they are opening themselves up for discussion. Your (and my) feeling that biblical literalism is a crock of shit is no less valid than their belief that it is correct. It is disingenuous for them to say that you can't say what you think when they get to say what they think. That's just whining. If you can't defend what you think, then don't open your yap.

[Zhade]

56. I gotcha.

Yes, both sides' feelings on a matter (e.g. biblical literalism) are valid - they're feelings, after all.

Of course, factually they're not equally valid, and if literalists don't want that pointed out, they shouldn't bring it up.

[Goblinmonger]

57. Absolutely

Though that gets to the kittens and pick axes thread. It mytifies me that theists seriously argue that faith is rational.

[Zhade]

58. Some, like TG, are honest in saying it's not.

And of course I've said before that the conclusions based on the initial unfounded assumption can be rational, although it may be more rationalization.

[pnwmom]

62. Makes a lot of sense, to a point. But what about the really obnoxious

cartoons that some have posted regarding Christianity? Yes, this is a public forum, but why can't we at least respect each other enough not to do that?

Another area in which there may be a spectrum of beliefs, for example, is with regard to GLBT issues. But you don't see people posting anti-gay marriage cartoons.

Why is it okay for us -- all liberals to some degree or another -- to attack Christians and not other groups?

[Zhade]

64. Well, for one thing, being GLBT isn't chosen. Religion is.

Note that I'm not saying the ability to believe unproven things is chosen - for all I know, there's a gene for it (some scientists seem to think so, anyway).

As to why one cannot post anti-GLBT stuff here, it's pretty simple: if you're (generic you, not you specifically) homophobic or don't believe in equal rights for GLBT folk like myself, you don't belong here. This board is for progressive politics (as it says in the website's About section), and being anti-GLBT or anti-equality is not at all progressive.

As to the cartoons...where are they? The only one I can recall in recent memory was the "history of religion" one, which I agree was an incomplete picture (pun intended).

[pnwmom]

66. There were a lot of offensive cartoons in a recent thread about

Easter. But I just checked -- they've been deleted.

Of course people don't choose to be gay. And of course this is a progressive board. But there is still a range of opinion on issues, even among progressives. For example, I think older people associated with the GLBT community are more likely to think that the timing of the Massachusetts decision and the flurry of gay marriages in places like Oregon was unfortunate, because it became such a wedge issue in the election. I am 50, and believe me, I know lots of people my age (and up) of this opinion. Many of us think we would have been better off to keep pushing for legal partnerships as in Vermont; then move toward marriage. We are also much more aware than young people of how far the community has come in a relatively short period of time (the last twenty years or so has been amazing.)

I just don't understand why people on all these boards can't treat each other with respect, even when there is disagreement.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

49. I like the respect part.

I get my feelings hurt when people tell me I'm dumb and then I eat ice cream.

[Zhade]

53. Well, I wouldn't tell you that you're dumb.

I might tell you, if you bring it up, that I think what you believe is dumb, and why, but only if the topic comes up.

Here, of course, the topic always comes up - but if it helps, I think you're one of the nicest believers around here, and I really respected that you pointed out that your beliefs didn't come from the rational part of your brain, which was very honest.

I like honesty. :)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

54. Thank you very much.

I like honesty, too.

My faith is a mystery to me. I don't know where it came from. It just showed up when I was about 3.

I told my mother I had been in heaven and met her father (he died the year before I was born) She didn't believe me. I think that's also where the ice cream habit started.

[pnwmom]

63. Hi Grannie. My daughter said something similar when she was three.

We had taken a little family trip to a special park in a city we hadn't explored before. My daughter told my mother-in-law that she had been there before. We told her, no, we've never taken you. Then she told us that her grandfather (who had died before her birth) had taken her there, "before I was born."

Around the time she was three she spoke fairly often of talking to her grandfather. We never quite knew what to make of it.

[hunter]

37. I'm waiting in respectful anticipation of the Easter Bunny bringing eggs.

Chocolate eggs would be good.

A dark, dark beer would be even better.

With a skillfully cured ham.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

50. Ahhhh you would like our Easter Feast

Plenty of dark beer. Stuffed pork, spiral ham, new potatoes, asparagus, strawberry pie.

Chocolate before during and after. Godiva only.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

41. Here, here!

I so pledge. When do we drink?

[Goblinmonger]

42. Frequently n/t

[nemo137]

67. I accept the pledge.

Although I respectfully point out that drinking with the R&T crowd could get real interesting real quick.