Should the Democratic Party be Exclusively Atheist?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

I think that would clear a few things up around here.
It may be the only logical thing to do.

[AwakeAtLast]

1. In a word, "No." n/t

[ogradda]

2. i don't think so

wouldn't work for this catholic girl, anyway.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

19. Well, could you separate the two?

Can you think only as a Dem when you're being political,
and only as a Catholic when you're being religious? It
would help if you could.

[H2O Man]

31. Maybe democrats shouldn't drive cars.

You know, them republicans do.
And maybe democrats shouldn't eat food.
Republicans eat food.
I think you may be on to something here.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

109. Thank you. The first idea is to be UNITED,

then to be different from THEM,
then to SELL the PRODUCT to the GREAT RELIGIOUS UNDECIDED.

[ogradda]

40. well of course

i wouldn't be here in the first place if i couldn't.

[mirandaod]

3. No.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Cat Atomic]

5. Why? The left is more in line with Christ's teachings than the right is.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

25. Yes, but we agree that the right is full of false piety.

So the left, in order to clear things up, could
simply go atheist, logical, sensible, reasonable,
in order to differentiate itself from the right,
because I think that's one of the things we want,
to be different so the voters will have a choice
and so we'll be truer to our principles, which,
after all, are rooted not in religion but in
humaneness.

[immoderate]

53. Where would we find candidates?

No candidate for public office (above dog catcher) will cop to being an atheist.

--IMM

[A-Schwarzenegger]

113. I don't want a atheist candidate. Why?

Because a atheist candidate will never win.
It wouldnt make any difference to me what a person
believed in terms of God if he or she eas a good
person and a strong leader. But if he or she believed
in God, he or she would have to wear it on his or her
sleeve in a way that is different and better from how
THEY wear it on their sleeve. I think the next great Democratic
leader will probably be very religious, but in a way that puts
THEIR religious stuff to shame. I think it will be somebody
like Andy Griffith in that movie, but noit getting corrupted,
and when it comes to Dem issues with baggae attached, he will
just steamroll through them and sandbag by the force of his
personality. Personality plus religion, what a concept.

[Patiod]

6. No, just stick with our principle of separation of church & state

We should continue to be secular, and leave religion out of it.

My religion (Friends/Quaker) informs my voting, my take on war, and my personal activism. Can't exactly leave it behind.

[stlchic]

7. Since most people in Democratic party

advocate separation of church and state and freedom of belief, and are not in agreement with exclusionist policies, that would hardly be logical or clear things up.

I may be wrong, but I think there's come sarcasm in the original post (or the originator is just posting flame bait...)

:shrug:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

32. I most am certainly not.

OK, set the logical aside for a moment. But I
disagree that it would not clear things up to
clear a few people out. If you have too many
of the wrong kinds of people around, it does help
to clear a few people out whether they're the
wrong kind or not, because it makes it easier to
see what you've got, see who's really left or not.
THEN you can start being more logical about who's
next to go.

[ogradda]

44. too many of the wrong kind of people around?

clear a few people out?

[hippywife]

47. Absolutely, unequivically NOT!! n/t

[napi21]

8. Absolutely NOT!

You may not believe in any existence of god, but most of America does! In fact, most of the World does, although they disagree on who he is.

That's one of the advantages of the Dem party in that they don't believe in forcing ANY religion on you or anyone else.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

13. I may believe in the existence of God.

But that's not relevant. I'm thinking of the Party, not
myself or my illogical beliefs. I think we must aim for
simplicity and clarity, and religion only complicates
things. If everybody that was a Dem was an atheist, it
would clear a lot of things up fast imho.

[stlchic]

20. Your suggestion implies that goverment secularism

and personal religious belief are incompatible, which they are not.

People who think the religious and the non-religious can't get along and work for a common purpose are the ones who shouldn't be in the democratic party.

[DireStrike]

24. Yeah, that's what I wanted to say.

Thanks for your eloquence.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

28. Well, as long as you're for throwing SOMEBODY out

that's a start. The idea is to clear things up
around here, so anything that gets a few people out
so we can see who's left, or remains, even if it's
me, that's a good start and I'm with you so far.

[immoderate]

39. Why exclude people who agree with us?

So we can lose all the time? The idea is to win, not simplify.

--IMM

[DireStrike]

22. Lol.

Our party is one of inclusion and tolerance. That's why we don't want one religion (christianity) in control even though most of us are christian.

Inclusion. Tolerance. You're not banned - a post like this on free republic would be a one way ticket to deletion. We want to promote free and open discussion and governance, free from the bias of any religion.

Surely you understand the concepts behind separation of church and state?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

35. I most certainly do understand that separation.

And it's a relief to know you haven't banned me for
calling for an extension of the separation. If separation
of church and state is good enough for the Constitution,
shouldn't separation of faith and thought be good enough for
the Party?

[bowens43]

172. that's silly.

just exactly what would it clear up and how would it help the party?

[JohnKleeb]

9. hell no

My Catholic identity along with my ethnic idenity helps make my political identity, many may not understand that but its very true.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

43. I understand it but it kind of makes my brain feel funny

trying to keep it straight. I think at this stage
of the transformation of the Democratic Party that
we should be going for SIMPICITY and CLARITY and
SINGLE-MINDEDNESSS or PURPOSE and DIFFERENTIATION
of US from THEM. Getting everybody to agree to be
atheist when they are being political would be a
start in those directions. I think we could at least
try it for a couple months to see how it goes.

[JohnKleeb]

52. I also feel we shouldn't be a christian party if makes you feel any better

The truth is, my faith is part of why I am a democrat.

[lanparty]

111. Don't turn athiesthism into a religion!!!

The faith that their IS NO GOD is the same as the faith that their IS. Both parties attempt to express knowledge of a supernatural condition that cannot be measured.

I'm not saying that ALL athiests do this. I'm just saying SOME DO.

I accept the principle that acceptance is based on rational, objective evidence. No such evidence seems possible beyond directly guided indpendently measured violations of the laws of physics and nature.

Basically, god would have to show up and say he's god. We'd have to be able to measure his "feats" in a way that would discern it from an alien species with superior technology!!!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

117. How would we measure and discern it?

"We'd have to be able to measure his "feats" in a way that would discern it from an alien species with superior technology!!!"

How?

[American Tragedy]

120. I'm so sorry that your brain hurts keeping all this straight

So, just for the sake of being different from the Republicans, we should adopt a stance that seems diametrically opposed, but is really just an inverse way of trying to draw windows into peoples' souls?

I'm non-sectarian and care little for religion, but I will be part of no political organization that requires faith or forbids it. I've known too many good people who lived under the Soviet Union and were oppressed and forced to live a lie, all for the sake of a brutal government who thought that they had the right to impose their social agenda on the entire region. In the sense of politics trying to invade people's personal philosophies, it is no different than the fundamantalists who would have us live according to their religious code.

The aim of politics should be to create an unintrusive government, that protects all of us from non-consensual impositions from others, and assists us in basic physical needs for survival.

I am on the verge of nominating this for most pointless post ever in General Discussion, anybody else with me?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

127. "most pointless post ever in General Discussion"

LOFL!

It's not THAT good!

Whoever gets it gets it.

[American Tragedy]

132. Yeah, you're right

I shouldn't have said that. General Discussion is only rivaled by the Lounge in irrelevant and senseless content. I'm sure there have been worse.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

134. Oh, come on, stick to your guns.

Girlie man.

[American Tragedy]

137. If you'd checked my profile

you'd know that I'm not a man at all.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

140. Real men don't check profiles.

[Malva Zebrina]

10. too bad that it could not be secular, rather than using the lable atheist

you know according to our secular laws. No party should advocate any religion, but that is the way it goes and becasue of it, we are now in the state of regression. All it would take is for someone to come along and hang the label 'atheist" on a party that wishes to remain secular--the religous believers would leave in droves, no matter the platform.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

51. Well, you could call it something else then.

I am open to new words. "Secular" is too confusing.
It sounds almost like "sexular" to the unconscious mind,
like there is "sex" and then there is "God." So secular might
be worse than atheist. It's better to have a word everbody
knows what it means, even if they hate it, then a word
that is confusing, even if half the people know what it
means. I'm thinking of something that makes people feel like
they are in a "time out" as far as religion goes, like when
you get home from a party and you take your clothes off to
feel more comfortable. That's what I mean about getting religion
out of the Dem Party, just to have it so that everybody feels
comfortable and we don't have that uncomfortableness of religion
between us like it is now.

[knowbody0]

11. our bible is and should be the constitution

[MsMagnificent]

23. Oops! Misread that! Sorry!

LOL I'm tired - pulled an all nighter.
I'm dyslexic & swapped Constitution and Bible in that sentence (ie 'our constitution should be the bible')
Deep apologies
Please forgive :)


The Constitution should be the Constitution

and the Bible kept out of Government.

There's this funny concept: Separation of church and state!

[Malva Zebrina]

26. No where in the Constitution is a god mentioned

keep that in mind if you value the Constitution and love this nation.

The god of the bible is only one of the gods worshipped in this country. Most people think it is the Christian god that rules over the country and the ten commandments the rule of law for all. That is not what was intended by the founders and they argued over it like banshees for years.

[MsMagnificent]

45. That whole era and its syntax usage is fascinating

Declaration of Independance "that we are endowed by our Creator of certain inalienable rights..."

Yet when seals were made, and money designed there is 'God'
--right along with Masonic emblems--
all throughout.

& I don't even want to get INTO the Illuminati! :D

[Malva Zebrina]

54. Hey we have a goddess standing tall atop the Capital building

and one in the middle of NY harbor that says bring me your tired, weary and oppressed and she is greatly admired and honored. :shrug:

The goddess of justice you know the babe holding the scale is still hanging around too. :-)

[H2O Man]

61. Sure it does.

The US Constitution certainly does mention God. To say it doesn't mention God is not correct. I agree with the rest of what you are saying. I think that the republican party has violated the spirit of the Constitution and that they pose a severe threat to all non-Christian people and many Christian people. And we have to deal with that. But we need to be accurate.

[lanparty]

118. No the constitution DOES NOT mention GOD!!!!

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

The declaration of independence mentions a "creator". It is debateable about what was meant. Most of the founders were Deists. They believed in a "natural world" that god created using a set of laws that worked all by themselves.

In that framework, the "creator" can be nature itself. But you can gain some insight by looking at the writer, Jefferson. Jefferson wasn't just apathetic to theistic Christianity, he was downright HOSTILE. He went so far as to write the "Jefferson Bible" that contained the works of the philosper Jesus (who he revered) without the religious overtones that he thought was subsequently added!!!

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/tripoli.htm
In the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, Jefferson and the US Senate (composed mainly of founders) clearly elaborate that we were NOT a Christian nation.

The basis for the notion that we were created as a "christian nation" are bogus. The founders were products of the age of reason. VERY FEW were religious adherents. And some of the most famous found Christianity "unintelligable".

I'm not saying Christianity is bad. I'm saying that were were NOT founded to be a "Christian Club". ONLY ONE colony of the thirteen was chartered as a religious state. And THAT colony is now the only state in the union to allow gay marriage. Go figure???

[H2O Man]

179. Please don't send me insulting e-mails.

The question was not does the Constitution declare the US to be a Christian nation. It was does the Constitution mention God. It does. Never assume you know the Constitution better than the Water Man. Do not insult me with foolishness, like saying that like republicans, I have never read it. Read Article VII, the last paragraph, for the mention of "our Lord." Guess I've read it a little closer than you.

[lanparty]

126. NO, the constittution does NOT mention god !!!

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

What constitution have YOU been reading???? Have you EVER read the constitution. Or are you just listening to the guy next to you who also says that Kerry is going to ban the bible???

Jeesh, do some fucking research before you post some things!!!


AND BTW, the Declaration of Independence IS NOT part of the Constitution!!! And even THAT does not say god. It says "creator" which under deism (the faith of MOST of the founders) means NATURE!!!

Actually it's probably meant to be ambiguous enough to get everyone's signatures. But it really doesn't MATTER since the Declaration of Idependence is NOT a source of law. It's a polite way of saying "FUCK OFF" to King George!!!!

[H2O Man]

185. I hope you are able to read.....

Article VII, the last paragraph, the 21st and 22nd words: "our Lord."
For the rest of your life, never think you know as much about the Constitution as I do. Don't mouth off about the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, as I said, the Constitution does mention God. It does not endorse a religion. But it has the words "our Lord."

[Malva Zebrina]

153. Oh, would you point that out to me, I must have missed it

please do provide the specific reference in the Constitution to the Christian god or any god.

[H2O Man]

177. Sure.

Read the last paragraph of Article VII.

[lanparty]

114. Well if you're mono-theistic ...

If you're mono-theistic you're technically worshipping the "same" god. The disagreement is who has the "correct" method of worship!!!

My take is it's impossible to conduct good relations with other nations when the premise of your nation is religious in nature. This is the "problem" with Iran and the Taliban according to conservatives. Yet they persist in insisting that we're a "christian" nation based on christianity FOR christians. Non christians are merely "tolerated" in their fucked up universe!!!

[Cobalt Violet]

12. I'm an atheist and I say no.

[immoderate]

30. I'm another atheist and I too, say no

You must be joking, but I'll respond anyway.

Religious thoughts are (or should be) irrelevant to principles of governance. Most polls show that atheists comprise less than 20% of the population. It's hard to win anything with such a handicap.

I think supporting the Constitution is a better test.

--IMM

[A-Schwarzenegger]

55. I'm not joking.

If atheist is too exclusive or conjures up scary images
for the religious people whose vote we want, then we need
a better word. It's the idea that counts, not the words
that form the idea. And the idea, if I could put it into
words, is to first of all make it so everybody that is a
Dem is COMFORTABLE being in the Dem Party AMONG other DEMS.
Once we are comfortable with ourselves and have gotten the
DIFFERENCES cleared up or minimized, THEN we can work on
the non-Dems.

[H2O Man]

64. You make the error

of assuming that you and this example of narrow thinking represents the democratic party. Take this to its logical consequence, and you'll see it is a silly idea at very best, and that it needs to be laid to rest.

[sangh0]

116. I think it may be a bit satirical

There's an argument running around that the Dems need to "stand up for principle", but that just leaves another open questio - Which principle do we stand up for?

Wouldn't it be nice if there were at least ONE ISSUE where we all agreed and wouldn't it make it easier for our chosen representatives to "stand up for principle" if they knew that we were all going to support them in their stand?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

119. Not satirical.

A little playful maybe, because I have experienced
a lot of anger reading a lot of things that get under
my thin skin having to do with religion and not
religion, and I wanted to find a place where I could
accept differences better myself, even if angrily expressed
by others (or myself), so that I could be a little more sane and
inclusive and embracing and embraceable as I/we go
through this discovery of what went wrong and what
could go right down the road.

[sangh0]

123. Then I apologize

I must have misinterpreted your playfulness as satire. However, I am still wondering if I was on the right track in thinking that by finding something we could all agree on, we could use that to promote actions that are consistent with out principles. Am I totally off?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

133. No apology necessary.

I get a personal negative connotation from "satire".
My problem, not yours.

Yes, you were right I was being ... indirect.

As for "something all we could agree on," I don't
think it's gonna happen, although I'd like to see
you tease that thought out a little because it sounds
true and because I enjoy your mind and your posts often.

What I want is a person who is completely comfortable
with their religion, as a liberal, and doesnt have to
make excuses or dillydally around about it. What was
Lincoln's religion? I seem to remember it was such a part
of him, not some fake thing he slapped on, or some flimsy
thing he wore but never felt comfortable in.

[sangh0]

142. Well, I'm not a Christian, but I consider myself a religious liberal

and I'm quite comfortable with that so if you have any questions, please feel free to ask.

As far as the "something we all could agree on" goes, from reading your OP and the posts where your thinking "evolves" on this, I got the impression that you're reacting to those who have been speaking angrily about the Talibornagains, an anger that sometimes leads them to strike out at other people of faith such as Christians, religious conservatives, etc. I got the impressioin that maybe you were thinking that we might quiet this down if we all (or most of must) agreed to keep religion completely out of our politics and our rhetoric.

And about Lincoln's religion - If asked, he would say a Christian, but he was not very observant of the traditions and rituals associated with Christianity. In some ways, he seems more like a Theist, like many of the Founding Fathers

on edit: BTW, I've never said this before, but I've always enjoyed your posts. You *ARE* very playful, and I appreciate that. "Real men don't check profiles" just cracked me up

[A-Schwarzenegger]

148. Thank you, SanghO. On this one thought...

"I got the impressioin that maybe you were thinking that we might quiet this down if we all (or most of must) agreed to keep religion completely out of our politics and our rhetoric."

No. Among other things which I discovered as I responded,
I was merely asking for tolerance first. If we really believe
that the "other" (be they religious or atheist) is somehow
deprived or deluded, and yet we're Dems all here, then isn't
compassion the best response? I am a Christian, but I feel
much more kin to a compassionate atheist than I do to a judgmental
Christian. Not that I'm judging the Christian for being
judgmental! Well, maybe I am a little, but at least I know I
shouldn't.

[sangh0]

154. Yes, compassion is the best response

Though I don't always practice it, I believe that compassion is always the best response.

This reminds me of two stories I've read on DU in the last few weeks. One story was about some repuke guy who goes Dem rallies with his young daughter and deliberately provokes the Dems into an argument with the intent of getting the Dems aggresive enough to make his very young daughter (who he puts on his shoulders) cry, so he can then tell the reporters "The Democrats made a little girl cry". I thought of all those children living in families where what Daddy says goes, where corporal punishment is not just condoned but encouraged, etc

Many of the people are raising their children in a brutally violent way. I think about the good body of psychological and socialogical evidence that humans who are subjected to long periods of brutal treatment turn out to be brutes themselves. I think about how fearful and "hand shy" a dog will become if you hit it all the time. I worry for what they will turn out to be, because I can see it standing there, holding up that young girl.

The other story was told by a DUer who told of her escape from a Fundamentalistic environement. I thought about how fortunate it was for her to be able to escape from a place where people tell you that everyone else from outside their own group was a henchmen of the devil. I thought about the courage it must have taken to leave the "safety" of her family and community and step out into an unknown world, and how she has grown since then. I though about how eloquent she was about her continuing desire to help the world and to find a place where she could live a "simple" life. And I kept thinking about how lucky she was to escape.

It occurred to me, that this woman, and the man holding up the child, the child herself, and all those others who we denounce here on DU are very much like that woman who escaped. In fact, I'm beginning to think that all those people *ARE* that woman in every single way but one

All of them are victims, but only one was fortunate enough to escape.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

159. No, I dont practice it as often as I could either,

but you know, sometimes I do. Thank you for those
stories, I remember the one about the guy with his
daughter & the sign. One of my sisters is a RW
fundamentalist, and trying to stay open despite my
caution and confusion in talking with her is
very painful, even without ever talking politics.

[DireStrike]

14. Dems are more religious than Rethugs.

Jesus would never support their kill for cash schemes.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

56. But Jesus never dragged his religion out to complicate things.

I'm just trying to simplify things. I think we have some
time to reduce unnecessary differences among us, so we
can march into the future as one, without illogical
complications like faith and things.

[flyingfysh]

15. absolutely not

This would be an extraordinarily stupid idea.

Besides excluding a lot of people with common sense (such as Jimmy Carter), it would also exclude people like the Quakers and Unitarians.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

57. I dont want to exclude anybody.

I just think we could keep our religion under out hat
amongst ourselves, and then whip it out when we are
trying to get a undecided Christian to vote Dem. Use
it when it's useful, and keep it hid when it just makes
things too complicated. You don't take a hammer to the
kitchen to make flapjacks, and you don't play chess with
a goldfish.

[bowens43]

16. absolutely not.

most of us are not atheists.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

59. Well maybe not but I think being comfortable around each other

and not have things unnecessarily complicated and
difficult to think about is more important than how
many is this or that. Obviously this religion business
is a stumbling block. Instead of wasting time trying
to figure out how the parts fit, why not just try to
throw out the part that seems to be causing the bad fit?
You don't see religious people trying to throw out the atheists,
do you?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[MsMagnificent]

18. Absurd

Heresy is another ;>

Are you implying that ALL Christians therefore believe as the Wingnut Right?

Ridiculous!

That's on such an unforgivable level as the Pukes insisting on all members be Assemblies of God or Snake-handlers (although that might be close ;)

& while I do advocate some change of Democratic tactics to fight the Right Fascism, this limitation is simply beyond the pale.

But for it even to be considered is saddening...
My Lord, my Lord; Christians are giving Thou a bad name!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

63. No, my idea is evolving as I go down the thread.

I am now calling for religious people not to talk
about their religion except in church. I think that will
be easier to take. Or OK, that's too far, but if not
just in church then at least not when they are being
political or Democratic. The IDEA
is to get the different parts of the Dem Party unentangled
so that we can see the wheat and the chaff. Not that the
religion is the chaff, but just that it makes things
too CONFUSING. People that are not religious should have
the same right to be free from the irrational confusingness
of religion just as much as the relious people have the right
to choose to be irrational and illogical. And I don't mean
illogical and irrational in a bad way. I just mean it as part
of how you get to where you have God fiddling around in
your life. There is life, and then there is politics, that's
all I'm trying to say. I'm just saying, if we want to win,
then we've got to SIMPLIFY a few things.

[Warpy]

21. This atheist thinks it's a stupid idea

After all, the ideals the party had before the DLC ruined it encompassed tolerance, charity, freedom, economic justice, and more. Since those are also the ideals of most people who have read the words of Christ and have managed to put them above the words of Paul or the Old Testament authors, making them unwelcome in the party would be incredibly self defeating.

We'd do better to clean house in the party, dislodging the DLC and all the other corporatist conservatives, and wooing the mainstrean Christians who are largely disgusted by the hypocrisy, greed and rampant corruption in the GOP but who have felt they had nowhere else to go.

Good people need to come together no matter what they believe or don't believe in terms of religion. That should be the point, not trying to exclude anyone whose opinion on the unprovable is at odds with our own.

[lwin]

33. This atheist agrees with that atheist...

I don't care if people want to believe in God or not...it's their choice. I just don't want anyone to shove their beliefs down MY throat.

If I were to take the stance that everyone but atheists be purged from the Dem party, then I become no better than Chimpy and his crowd.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

65. Yes, I am changing my views as I write.

I don't think that it should be atheist, but I do
think that we should care right now about the Dem Party
FIRST, rather than reaching out to anybody else. It is
obvious that there are people here that are upset and
uncomfortable with religious people hanging around and
looking a little weird and suspicious, if you want to be
frank. Now who should change to make the PARTY COMFORTABLE,
the people that are UNCOMFORTABLE, or the people that are
MAKING THEM UNCOMFORTABLE? If all it takes is to keep your
religion to yourself to be invited back into the fold with
the uncomfortable, then why not keep it under your hat. As
I said, the magician doesnt keep his rabbit on the table with
him when he's eating and reading and so forth, he only pulls
it out of his hat when the show is on.

[mitchum]

27. No, but we should be exclusively SECULAR...

as the founding fathers intended

[Doomsayer13]

29. we would never win another election

[A-Schwarzenegger]

69. I am only talking about amongst ourselves.

As a selling tool, yes, religion comes in handy, when
you're out and about with people that go for that sort
of thing. But the salesman doesnt try to sell his own wife
and children a vacuum cleaner, does he?

[DuaneBidoux]

34. Give me a break. We accept ALL religions. That is what makes Us

different.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

83. Yes, in one way it is good to be different

in terms of how WE are different from THEM.
But when iut comes to WE and US, then I think
we should be willing to give up certain differences
in order to be united and comfortable. One of those
differences here at DU is religion. People that are
religious should be willing to give up more because
that is what God wants them to do. Nobody is telling
an atheist to give things up to the religious person,
are they? So if we are going to get rid of the religious
conflict HERE, then the religious person is the only
one who is going to do it or who should do it, and that
is as it that should be. Religion should be used not in
the home (DU) but only when it is useful in dealing with
a undecided Christian outside of the home. Again, if you
need a canoe to get across the river, go ahead and use it,
but when you get back home then leave it outside, don't
take it inside and carry it around on your head knocking
all the lamps over.

[Cleita]

36. We shouldn't have to explain our beliefs.

That's what separation of Church and State is about. Jesus said it best.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

So even Jesus himself tells us that the Kingdom of God has nothing to do with the empire of Caesar's.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

84. Right, but I'm talking about separation of religion and politics

except when useful. We should be better than the Repubes,
who cannot separate the two out. We should see that religion
is a tool, like a saw or a shovel. Religion should be
private, because it is confusing, unless it is useful in
dealing with people who only understand confusion. What
good is religion if it keeps you out of office? What good
is religion if it causes people in your own family (DU,
Dem Party) to snarl & hiss at each other. Let's simply set
our faith and religion and other illogical, irrational and
confusing things like that aside for, say, a few months, just
to see how it goes. You with me?

[mike_c]

37. this atheist thinks your post is flame-bait....

eom

[A-Schwarzenegger]

166. It was not flame-bait.

But if it was, I guess it failed.
I dont see too many flames. I dont see too many
people who got it right off the bat, but I dont
see too many flames either. Wasnt locked anyway,
so far. It came from a deep feeling that if I would
have expressed it directly, it WOULD have been flame-bait
and would have gotten locked.

[Zhade]

38. This atheist says "don't be stupid".

Why the hell should we exclude good people of faith who believe in democracy? It's a form of fascism to do so.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

86. You are right.

My philosophy has evolved right now. I don't think we
should ask religious people to step outside, I think they
should volunteer to act like atheists in order to smooth
things over for a while, until they see that it is counter-
productive to be religious if it divides or if it loses
votes. Only when it gets votes or makes the Dems stronger
should religion be employed. Otherwise, what's the point?
Certainly a religious person can be good and Democratic
without having to bring God into it and make other people
uncomfortable or upset in various ways.

[American Tragedy]

131. How the hell would pretending to be atheists gain votes?

Were you paying ANY attention to the last election?

Don't you understand? We aren't the ones who choose to bring religion into politics. The Republicans have done it and will continue to do it. Just because we avoid the divisive issues does not mean that the other side will abandon them and play our way. And you think we should play right into their hands by pretending to be infidels just for the hell of it, which is the very impression that they desperately have been trying to achieve with the electorate?

Seriously, I hope you're joking.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

141. Please calm down, for my sake if not yours.

Those that have ears, hear.

[Ann Arbor Dem]

41. No, no, no and no. n/t

[skygazer]

42. Of course not

What a ridiculous notion. I consider myself an agnostic personally and I have no use for religious extremists of any stripe but turning the Democratic Party into an exclusionist club for atheists is a recipe for collapse.

I personally think that what the party needs to do is to stop trying to be everything to everyone and redefine what exactly its positions are on the core issues. Like it or not, the GOP is pretty clear in its narrow agenda - most people are not political junkies and need a clear, concise idea of what each party's beliefs are. And I don't think they are clear on what ours are. JMO

[A-Schwarzenegger]

88. Agree & disagree.

"I personally think that what the party needs to do is to stop trying to be everything to everyone and redefine what exactly its positions are on the core issues."

Yes, but the problem is that the Dems are better people and better
believers than the Repubes, but the undecideds in the road think
otherwise. Why? Because the Democratic Party, like you say, is
too COMPLICATED. If you like potatoes, you are not going to go to
a French restaurant. So how does the Dems differentiate themselves
and at the same time GET SIMPLE. You can't, that's how, unless we
learn to get along first. Religion simply confuses people when you
mix thinking and believing. That is what the Dems are today, a mix
of thinking and believing. It comes down to a simple choice, it
may be one or the other, but it can't be both. Oh, it can be both
all right, but you get the Dem Party, which is confusing to the
undecided in the road.

[immoderate]

104. I think the French do great things with potatoes.

They call them pommes de terre. They make French fries and modestly just refer to them as frites. And people call them arrogant.

Vive la France!

--IMM

[A-Schwarzenegger]

122. Why don't they call apples "potatoes of the air"?

[Kenergy]

46. No, imo

I think we should stick with the Constitution. Believe in the
Easter Bunny if you want, just keep church separated from government.
My .02

[A-Schwarzenegger]

89. The problem is that religious Dems *don't* believe

in the Easter Bunny. If they believed in the Easter Bunny,
like the Repubes, then we would be in power in the
country right now. One solution is for religious Dems
to get together and simply their religion or faith or
whatever they want to call it. Get one simple religion
that is as simple and clear as the Repubes Easter Bunny
and then we will be rocking & rolling.

[Journeyman]

48. Reduce the Dem Party to about a 15th it's size?. . .

There's an opinion worthy of your namesake! And the 15% figure is being quite generous. . . that's if you include both agnostics and those who claim no religion.

But, hey, don't get me wrong. It's a great suggestion you've got there, provided you'd be happy belonging to a margianalized, permanent minority political party throughout the rest of your life.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

92. My views have evolved.

I am now for a DU/DemParty that makes its religion
PRACTICAL & USEFUL & RATIONAL & LOGICAL. Everybody
has some little oddball thing they like, so I'm not
against religion per se. I do advocate now a Democratic
Party religion that is put away in a lockbox until it
is useful to win votes, but is kept away from children
and small animals if all it does is upset and confuse.

[Uzybone]

49. Hell No

Part of the reason Im a liberal/democrat is becasue I was raised as and by real christians. They believe in compassion, tolerance, faith, honesty, humbleness and charity.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

94. But couldn't you be a liberal/democrat

and believe in compassion, tolerance, faith, honesty, humbleness
and charity without bringing up religion, which only separates
and confuses and upsets? Certainly there are good atheists who
do and have all those things, but they don't bring up their
atheism to upset and confuse and separate, do they?

[LiberteToujours]

50. Of course not

And I'm an atheist.

[Booster]

58. Now there's a great idea. We would do away with probably

3/4 of our base.

[smbolisnch]

60. No.

Dems are supposed to fight for people's rights as Americans. That is a big part of what our party is all about. Telling them they must be atheist is contradictory to that, at the very least.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

97. I'm not telling them they must be atheists.

I'm only humbly suggesting that they keep their religion
under their hat when it will only cause trouble (like here),
and then use it on Sunday or Saturday or when they are talking to a religion undecided who it will be useful to use it on to get their
vote.

[smbolisnch]

102. Well in that case,

I wholeheartedly agree. I think people should always keep their religion to themselves. I don't go around telling everybody what blood type I am or what size bra I wear, so why should I go around telling them about my religion, or lack there of? I didn't get that from your first post...it was a pretty general question!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

105. Well, that makes two of us.

So now we have to figure out a way to keep religion
from coming up here EXCEPT when it is USEFUL in figuring out
how to trick the religious undecideds into voting Dem.

[smbolisnch]

110. Well, we could all just do what I do..

when someone starts a religious thread, I ignore it. That's going to make my day a little less shitty, yes. The rest of DU? Now that's a challenge.....unfortunately, I doubt that anything will never change people's desire to start a thread that will cause a fight. Some people just seem to get off on it, for whatever reason. :shrug:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

135. I don't know.

I felt strongly when I started this thread. It
came from anger and hurt. I didnt start it to start
a fight. I started it because I had a pasionate impulse
that came out the way it did. I dont think it's going to make
anything worse around here, and probably not better
either. It changed me in some ways I'll find out
more about, that's all I can say.

[Cocoa]

62. you've been listening to GOP propaganda too much

a question like this can only come from a mind that has been enfeebled by GOP trash over a long period of time.

[H2O Man]

66. Good point ....

it indicates one believes that which the republicans say .....

[A-Schwarzenegger]

100. I'm sorry you feel that way.

It was only a question that I feklt safe here to ask.
I guess I should be throwed out like trash. If you are
interested, my ideas have revolved and now I think that
religious people should at least pretend to be atheists
when it is helpful and soothing to the group and conducive
to unity at DU and among the Dems Party. What good is a
hammer and a saw when you are eating dinner?

[ShaneGR]

67. We couldn't possibly do anything worse, a DEFINITE NO!

Worst idea...... ever.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

101. Thank you for at least a polite response.

I have changed my thinking in any case.

[GRLMGC]

68. no

what's the sense in excluding most of the population?

[donheld]

70. No no no a thousand times NO

We just have to teach people what separation of church and state means.

[Q]

71. What the hell are you talking about?

- This is as bad as the 'litmus test' for christians in the New Republican party.

- Where do you guys come up with these lame ass ideas?

- This is exactly why the Founders wanted to keep religion out of government.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

103. I am not talking about government. Sheesh.

I am talking about DU and the Dem Party amongst Dems.
Do we want unity, at the cost of giving up a few
personal beliefs for a while, or do we want to be
free individuals who go down swinging---at each other.

[Q]

145. Of course you're talking about the government...

...because one party or the other gets elected into power and they run this country. That's the problem now...with the Bushies breaking down the separation between church and state and ramming THEIR religion down everyone's throats.

- I'm beginning to believe that you're pulling our collective leg. No one would seriously consider such a proposal.

[LynnTheDem]

72. The ENTIRE FOUNDATION of the D Party is to be NOT EXCLUSIVE

If you WANT "exclusive", go make up your own party.

Jebus fucking cripes!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

165. "go make up your own party"

All right then I will!

Oh, look, I have!

Now if I can just get that
annoying little Constitution changed...

[Geek_Girl]

73. We would never win an election

How many openly atheist politicians are there. The I would have to leave to since I'm not an atheist.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

167. Well, we could find some who would PRETEND to be atheist.

There are a few who pretend to be religious, right?

[fleabert]

74. no.

[Bluebear]

75. No, it should be exclusively secular!

[TroglodyteScholar]

76. Doesn't matter...

Politicians who are against prayer in school...they're terrible Christians anyway -- may as well be Satanists.

/sarcasm

[Carl Brennan]

77. What a Founding Father thought

I have examined all the known superstitions of the World, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world ...

The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves. , in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.

Thomas Jefferson


from <http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc550.html><http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc550.html>

[Carl Brennan]

78. George Washinton and Thomas Paine thought....

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."
Thomas Paine


"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."
Thomas Paine




"There is nothing which can better deserve our partonage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-- Geo. Washington

[Scairp]

79. I thought we were the all-inclusive party?

Did that change? We should become what the wingers accuse of being anyway, is that your philosophy? Absurd. I am not religious, but neither am I necessarily an atheist, and certainly would never denigrate others for their religion, just for trying to force their belief system on the rest of us. It would appear that you have missed that distinction. Big time.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

169. Absurd, yes, you see.

"certainly would never denigrate others for their religion, just for trying to force their belief system on the rest of us"

Don't you love irony?

[leesa]

80. Whatever for?

[Cerridwen]

81. No. And I don't follow your "logic" at all. - n/t

[gardenista]

82. Hmmm... I don't think we should be exclusively Atheist. Say we want

to be a Baptist every once in a while, or go through a Catholic phase. Why limit yourself? Like I always say, communion at noon, shiva at six. Life's too short to limit yourself to one (non) religion.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

136. Now, see, here's an Atheist with a sense of humor.

Dying breed.

[freetobegay]

85. No!

If that were to happen the Atheist would not have a party!

[Selwynn]

87. Not even worthy of a response. Glad to see DU opposes absurdity. (nt)

[A-Schwarzenegger]

139. Hey, don't knock absurdity.

Get rid of absurduty, you get rid of 82% of life.

On the other hand, that could be a winning slogan:

Dems Oppose Absurdity!

[JVS]

90. If so, don't expect to win any elections for a long time

[Jack Schitt]

91. No.

[Hello_Kitty]

93. The Democratic Party isn't atheist. Period.

As an atheist myself, I don't want or need to impose my beliefs on anyone else. That's what the religious fascists on the right do. That's their bag not mine.

[catbert836]

95. NO!!!!

In fact, we should be more religious than the Repukes.

[wryter2000]

96. No!

Why would you want to eliminate all good people of faith?

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

98. Speaking as an atheist, I would say "NO"

Believe in a god does not preclude entry into the Democratic party. However, when that belief trumps the common goals of a truely Democratic society or when it trumps scientific FACT, then it should be shunned as atavistic, idiotic, and subversive.

JB

[Redleg]

99. No- are you kidding about this?

Or are you trying to stir up some shit?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

144. Neither one.

I care deeply about this issue.
I think the relationship of a candidate to his/her faith
is, like it or not, an important issue, here on DU,
in the Dem Party, in the nation, now
and in the future.
The AUTHENTICITY of that faith.
I choose to express my views on it in the way I choose,
and you choose to read it as you read it.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

106. I'LL NEVER CATCH UP WITH ALL THIS.

My idea has evolved through this thread from my
first responses on down in order, if you
are still interested. I am serious, but that is up
to you decide and see for yourself, and how. Thank you for
your individual perception, atheist or religious
or other.

[lanparty]

107. Democrats are not about EXCLUSION ...

Democrats are about INCLUSION!!! If you wish to exclude, become a Shrodingers Cat Republican!!!

[Clarkie1]

108. Here is how we can appeal to the Religious Right

"You will determine whether rage or reason guides the United States in the years to come. You will choose whether we are known for revenge or compassion. You will choose whether we, too, will kill in the name of God, or whether in His Name, we can find a higher civilization and a better means of settling our differences."

- Wes Clark

[American Tragedy]

112. The only logical thing to do? Right, that makes sense.

I'm sure that making our party as exclusive as possible will work to the advantage of the progressive movement.

[pdx_prog]

115. why?

did someone assume that all athiests were democrats? Bullshit.

[really annoyed]

121. No

Remember, atheists are evil! They are part of that "fringe" group that is destroying the Democratic party!!

And since Hitler and Stalin were atheists, that makes all atheists equal to those two men!

Atheists only make up 0.5% of the population. That 15% stat applies to people who say "no religion." That doesn't equal atheist.

Ok, sarcasm aside.... If the Democratic party is going to be the party of inclusion, it should be open to all faiths, including those with no faith.

[pinto]

124. No.

[Misunderestimator]

125. Yeah, right, and exclusively Gay too... Then we could get a whopping 4%

of the vote. Great idea.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

173. But it would be a pretty damn solid 4%!!!

[scarlet_owl]

128. No. And how is it "logical" to alienate religious liberals?

[madfloridian]

129. LOL I do love your posts.

:evilgrin:

Seriously I do. Not being sarcastic. You cut to the point quickly and incisively.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

150. Thank you. Truly. Deeply.

[Maddy McCall]

130. No fucking way. Have you lost your mind?

Only a small minority of the Democratic party as it exists is atheist? Why would you want to cut even more people out of the party?

Y'all want to do away with southerners, and now with anyone who doesn't believe in a higher power.

Amazing. Simply and stupidly amazing.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

174. Yes.

Hep me.

[StrongbadTehAwesome]

138. As an atheist, I'd have to say

that is one of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time. Secular does not equal atheist.

Everyone's religious beliefs or lack thereof should be protected by the government. That means protecting free expression but also refusing to turn the beliefs of a few faiths into law.

[PurityOfEssence]

143. We're the party that embraces religion; they're the one that requires it.

If you want to go around stirring up hatred and vengeance against non-believers, you're far different from that nice guy I met last year.

If recriminations against religion bug you, try to put yourselves in the shoes of us who are fair game to be hated and destroyed in this society.

This thread is flame-bait. Remember: this board is a place of refuge; if it bugs you that non-believers have the gall to not accept their calumny, inferiority and being a liability to everyone else, then avoid reading such threads.

Religion has fucked this country more than anything else of late; more than racism, classism, homophobia and pure untrammeled greed. If you don't believe that, then don't.

This party cannot dismiss believers or non-believers without denying the core of its being: cosmopolitanism and openness.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

155. I see flame-bait as a post

that comes from a malicious place, a cold place
with no intent but to stir trouble. That was far
from where this came from, or what it meant to me.

I just read one thread too many that was clogged with
"fuck all christians, if they dont like it then go
find a fuckedup RW christian and fix the bastard"
etc.

Atheists & Christians & everybody got it hard in this world.
Blast whatever you want to blast, but if it's counter-
productive... Christian-bashing wont drive me out of the
Dem Party, but it might drive me out of DU. It won't
if I get to express myself now & then in the way I do.
You can decide for yourself if maybe you misunderstood
my post some, and if so still, I'll take the blame for it.

If I may repeat my response to SanghO's question:

"I got the impressioin that maybe you were thinking that we might quiet this down if we all (or most of must) agreed to keep religion completely out of our politics and our rhetoric."

No. Among other things which I discovered as I responded,
I was merely asking for tolerance first. If we really believe
that the "other" (be they religious or atheist) is somehow
deprived or deluded, and yet we're Dems all here, then isn't
compassion the best response? I am a Christian, but I feel
much more kin to a compassionate atheist than I do to a judgmental
Christian. Not that I'm judging the Christian for being
judgmental! Well, maybe I am a little, but at least I know I
shouldn't.

[JackRiddler]

146. Is this a loaded question? nfm

[A-Schwarzenegger]

175. Clean & sober.

[Laelth]

147. No. That's silly!

First Amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

It's first for a reason. We don't impose religion on anyone, and everyone's free to worship as they choose. I can't believe someone even thought this was negotiable in the Democratic party.

I can assure you, this is not negotiable!

-Laelth

[molly]

149. I thought we were against "church" and state?

Atheism is a belief don't ya think?

[Laelth]

156. We're not against church.

And we're not against state, either. I thought we were for the separation of church and state. Important distinction, don't you think?

-Laelth

[molly]

158. Actually that is what I meant - but atheism is a belief

[Laelth]

176. Agreed.

and, in a secular state, as valid as any other belief.

:toast:

-Laelth

[Malva Zebrina]

157. No it is lack of belief

in any gods period.

Get it straight.

It is simply impossible for athiests to believe a god exists, period. We cannot, simply. Personally, I do not see any difference in the way I live my life than that of those believers, say Christians, live theirs.Can you point out one to me? Don't ask atheists to and don't tell us that the Christian god rules over us as a country because that is magical thinking to atheists.

[petepillow]

151. Surely you ask this sarcastically?

Otherwise, you're way off base Ah-Nuld. Perhaps you could start your own party.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

161. No, I asked with passion & anger & hurt.

I see sarcasm as just smug or cynbical or fucking around.

But yes, I was being indirect.

As for starting my own party, I guess you didn't notice:
I already have.

[HeeBGBz]

152. No, not at all

There are a hell of a lot of spiritual beliefs in between the radical and deluded branch of Christianity and atheists.

I believe in a higher power. It's the only thing that keeps me from going over the edge. I grew up in a Baptist turned fundie church. The changeover warped my belief system for a while. I lost my religion but I will keep my spirituality.

[hlthe2b]

160. Nice... very nice.... Let's see now...

-we don't want Christians because the RW has appropriated religion?
-we don't want gays/lesbians, because the marriage issue hurt us?
-we don't want single professional women, because they antagonize the traditional values folks?
-we don't want unmarried child-bearing age women, because then we must discuss right have control over their own bodies?
-we don't want Red state folks, especially in the South, well because they are tainted by the REPUG RW values in their states?

For God's sake, for Goddess' sakes, for COMMON SENSE' sakes, STOP TRYING TO PITCH SOME OF US OVER THE SIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We are in this boat together. Fight for all of us!

[HootieMcBoob]

162. I'm glad we're able to hide threads again n/t

[HootieMcBoob]

163. damn, I thought we got that function back

oh well.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

168. You can always put me on ignore & then

this thread will disappear, along with all the
nice things I said about you mixed throughout the
posts.

[Zuni]

164. Absolutely NOT. They would exclude me, a proud Christian Dem.

[LizW]

170. No.

[bobbieinok]

171. absolutely stupid idea...idea is a repub talking point ..how many DUers

do you plan to kick out of the party?????

this just repeats religious right's major talking point and is just STUPID

[indigobusiness]

178. No. It should just exclude hypocrites

There's more than enough room for the sincere of all stripe.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

181. Uh oh we could all be in trouble then.

[indigobusiness]

183. Just the hypocrites...

and insincere.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

184. Doesn't hypocrisy mean

say one thing, do another?
Never done that?
And never been insincere?
Well, maybe not you, but I'm sure out.

[indigobusiness]

191. It isn't about absolutes.

It's about how you feel when you catch yourself doing it, and what you do about it. Nobody is perfectly or imperfectly hypocritical, but you are missing the point, entirely.

[DemBones DemBones]

180. Are you nuts? eom

[A-Schwarzenegger]

182. No, but sometimes I forget the difference.

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

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

[orpupilofnature57]

187. EXCLUSION is an upRIGHT thing to do,dont you think .therefore

you are.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

189. I am what? Got an English translation of that post?

[harpo]

188. no party should be completely athiest or you exclude a large majority

[ScreamingMeemie]

190. I would have to go elsewhere then to a third party, and you'd lose

my vote.

[RebelOne]

192. I'm an atheist and I think this is really a dumb question.

I mean, who really cares about anyone's religious persuasion?

[Moderator]

193. Locking.

From the DU Rules for Posting:

BIGOTRY

Do not post racist, sexist, homophobic, ethnic, anti-religious, or anti-atheist bigotry. Unambiguous expressions of bigotry will be deleted, and will often result in the immediate banning of the individual responsible.

If it is not clear whether a comment is bigoted, we will generally give the benefit of the doubt and assume the least-bigoted interpretation. However, individuals who repeatedly post borderline-bigoted comments will be considered bigots and will be removed.

When discussing race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or religion, please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view. This will help avoid misunderstandings and undeserved accusations of bigotry.