Has General Discussion Been Hostile to Religious Believers recently?

[el_bryanto]

73 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I am a believer and the answer is definitely
	18 (25%)
	I am a believer and the answer is sort of
	0 (0%)
	I am a believer and the answer is not really
	1 (1%)
	I am a believer and the answer is definitely not
	1 (1%)
	I am not a believer and the answer is definitely
	17 (23%)
	I am not a believer and the answer is sort of
	3 (4%)
	I am not a believer and the answer is not really
	1 (1%)
	I am not a believer and the answer is definitely not
	27 (37%)
	One thing I do believe is that this poll is bullshit!
	0 (0%)
	I like to vote!
	5 (7%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[BlueCaliDem]

1. Yes. But that's not a recent occurrence on DU. GD, and most of DU have always bee pretty hostile to

"religious believers", as you dub them.

[el_bryanto]

2. What's wrong with that term? nt

[BlueCaliDem]

3. It sounds condenscending, even patronizing. Just my opinion. eom

[Mariana]

101. What term would you prefer? nt.

[BlueCaliDem]

105. Definitely NOT "religious believers". How about Christians? Jewish? Muslims? Buddhists?

People of faith? Spiritual people? You don't see calling people of faith "religious believers" condescending or even insulting?

[nxylas]

106. I don't see anything wrong with it

I use it myself, and I don't object to being described as such.

[BlueCaliDem]

109. I do. And I'd never use it. I always say, "people of faith" in instances like this. eom

[hfojvt]

334. that's still makes it about beliefs

rather than actions.

For example, from the book "Putting away childish things"

"Some people are troubled by the miracle stories and want to heave them overboard along with the whole New Testament. Others defend them with tooth and nail and act as if Christianity in general and the truth of Jesus' message in particular depended on everyone's believing these miracles. The Evangelists wanted to praise Jesus to the skies through their accounts of his miracles, to make him great and imposing. They wanted to show that divinity gleamed, as it were, right through his clothes. But all they did was put a pile of tiny miracles in front of the true miracle that Jesus is all about: the miracle of the love of God. The miracle stories have been used not to open up but to obstruct our view of Jesus." 96

When asked about the greatest commandment, the answer was not about "to believe in God, and the last days" (as the Koran says) it was "to love the Lord, and to love your neighbor".

I prefer to say "follower" of Jesus, rather than "believer".

[BlueCaliDem]

366. That's why I believe that term, "people of faith" to be neutral.

And I've enjoyed your post, hfojvt. Thank you for taking the time to write and post it.

Just so we're clear, I'm also a follower of Christ although I don't go to church and I don't subscribe to any institutionalized religion. But I call myself a Christian because I try to follow the examples set out by Christ.

Consequently, the greatest commandment, according to Christ, is to "love the Lord and to love our neighbors". The unpardonable sin (which some would arguably call "the greatest sin&quot , is rejecting that same Lord because Jesus is our salvation, our only path to eternal salvation. He's said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

[1StrongBlackMan]

201. Do the people of whom you refer ...

Believe in the religion or do they have religious beliefs?

There is a difference.

[Mariana]

108. No, I don't think it's condescending or insulting.

I think it's neutral.

[BlueCaliDem]

110. Are you a person of faith, then? eom

[Prophet 451]

209. I am and I see it as neutral

I might describe myself as such, or a man of faith or something similar.

[BlueCaliDem]

221. I am, too, and I don't see it as neutral.

"People of faith" is commonly and widely used and accepted as a neutral reference for people who are spiritual and/or religious. Or they're mentioned by their religion, i.e., Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, etc.

"Believers" is a term usually associated with and attributed to cult followers or conspiracy theorists and carries a negative connotation. As a person of faith, I would think you would know that, Prophet 451.

[Prophet 451]

223. It might be used differently there

I'm British and here, "believers" is considered a neutral term. This might come down to a Transatlantic difference in language.

[nxylas]

268. I think you're right

I'm also British (though I lived in the US for 6 years and am married to an American) and didn't see anything wrong with it. I guess it's only in the States that it's used in a pejorative fashion. I'll have to ask my wife.

[Mariana]

338. It's not used an a pejorative fashion in the states.

I've never heard of anyone else, besides that poster, objecting to being called a religious believer. For example, the OP is religious, and obviously doesn't consider it insulting or condescending, or wouldn't have used the term in the first place.

[nxylas]

347. My wife had never thought of it as a pejorative either

I will think twice before using it in future, just in case, but it does appear to be a personal thing.

[treestar]

13. +1

One often sees religion characterized as "superstitious," "nonsense" and "fairy stories."

[edhopper]

23. But is that aimed at

the belief or the believer. Can they be seen as different.

[HappyMe]

26. I've seen it aimed both at the belief and the believer at the same time.

You get called stupid, deluded, irrational.

[edhopper]

28. why it is usually banded

in GD.

And why it is allowed in Religion Forum.

[HappyMe]

35. It's usually not allowed in GD

because there is a Religion fight club. If there are hosts for Religion, it's up to them what is allowed there. The admins will decide when the religion threads are no longer allowed in GD.

As far as being called stupid and irrational goes, I won't bother to alert because it wouldn't be hidden anyway (in GD). I have looked into the Religion forum and really can't be bothered.

[840high]

181. +10

[joeglow3]

33. No you sound like a religious hater of homosexuals

They claim to "hate this sin but love the sinner."

[edhopper]

55. Not at all

I am saying we can debate the precepts of a religion and not insult the believer. Any more than when we disagree on other subjects.

But if you want to take every challenge of religious belief an insult to the believer, then I say, so be it.

[el_bryanto]

82. It depends on the critique

You've been around to see some critiques that are clearly aimed at believers - it's hard for believers not to take umbrage at those particular arguments.

The argument that believer are delusional or intellectually dishonest for example.

Bryant

[cbayer]

112. This is kind of ironic as just this morning you were lecturing mormons

that it was time they gave up the fiction of their church and live in the real world.

That is not a debate on the precepts of the religion and clearly an insult of the believer.

[edhopper]

165. Yes it is, I am saying their precepts are bullshit.

But that guy didn't even believe it. It was a different story when I read further.
I think he stayed to help others in the Church.
People he couldn't talk to if excommunicated.

[Bluenorthwest]

125. So you are equating criticism of a set of ideas held by choice to a religious motto which equates

sexual identity to a behavior. This is not really as ok as you think it is.

[joeglow3]

206. It is pretty clear what I am criticizing.

Nice try though.

[treestar]

297. Religion is about a lot more

than merely being anti-gay, and in fact some modern religionists are not anti-gay.

And you don't say religion is no good because it has tenets to limit women. That part doesn't bother you at all, I guess, since it doesn't affect you.

[treestar]

295. At the belief might not be so direct

And not as directly insulting, still, it's pretty obvious that if a religion is a superstition, if you believe in it, you must be considered superstitious by the person saying it. May not be much of a distinction.

[edhopper]

298. Well then

so be it. If believers think they get a special exemption from criticism or rebuke "cause religious" they will just have to grow thicker skin.
Ideas don't get special privileged because someone just believes them.

[treestar]

299. I'm sure they do have a thick skin in many cases

They are going to be used to it in modern times.

Though what they say - it is not said that anyone they speak against should have a thicker skin - i.e. you would not like them calling unbelievers any particular names they might come up with.

I kind of admit being called an infidel by a Muslim would be more amusing than upsetting.

But if a Christian said something undesirable about you, I wonder how thick your skin is going to be.

Attacking other people verbally is usually looked on as undesirable for a reason. It makes ill will, not matter who is doing it/is the brunt of it.

[edhopper]

300. I thought your premise

was calling what they believe is a superstition is insulting.

not calling them abusive names?

Give me a list of what you think is insulting and I can respond.

[treestar]

303. It's not insulting

It just doesn't build bridges. It creates division and ill will. Someone else believing in a religion I don't believe it doesn't harm me in any way. They do more good than bad (DU tends to focus on the fundies and their ridiculous pronouncements).

[edhopper]

308. I tend to keep my talk about religion

in places like the religion forum, where people come to debate these ideas.
But I don't find anything wrong with open debate of any ideas.
Their are lots of ideas that people get offended by if challenged.
We don't tell people not to talk about Obama's successes and failures because it might offend someone.
Religious doesn't get a special pass.

[phil89]

290. Well it is mythology

so those are accurate descriptions.

[treestar]

296. Apparently you think your opinion in

incontrovertible fact.

[okasha]

210. You're correct that it's not recent.

But I'm a believer and havie no objection to the term.

Or to "people of faith," either.

[pecwae]

315. +

As a non-believer I concur. I wouldn't want to be in a religious person's shoes here.

[HappyMe]

4. Not really.

I'm sure there are some hostile posts, but all the mocking has reached the point of being more annoying than anything else. It's not the kind of annoying that makes a person angry, more like the eye rolling annoying.

[OLDMADAM]

203. I'm sorry, but I am annoyed at the blatant disrespect for religious people..

I am not a practicing Christian any longer for reasons I feel are personal, and I am not a regular member of any church..

I respect rights of anyone to have opinions on any subject, and that includes their personal spiritual beliefs.. I fail to understand why some others on this site find that Liberal attitude soooooo offensive..

[DrewFlorida]

5. If you define hostile as disagreeing, then the answer is yes!

[Skittles]

152. yup - there is a religious BOG here too

[Zorra]

6. People who believe in religion are generally dangerous to life everywhere.

Religions are nothing but organized collections of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

Spiritual folks who believe in a living Creator, Goddess, God, Universe, etc, are generally supportive of life, and they are fine with me.

People who believe in religion have killed millions and they will eventually kill the planet if the rest of us don't prevent them from doing so.

[dissentient]

7. +1000. I make the same distinction as you do.

[el_bryanto]

8. Presumably that includes religious duers nt

[Zorra]

20. Do you believe in God, or in religion? nt

[el_bryanto]

22. I believe in God and I practice a religion. nt

[Zorra]

32. I specifically said generally. Does your religious organization current support limiting the

rights of LGBT persons? Does your religious organization support limiting women's right to make choices about what they can do with their own bodies?

Has your religious organization ever sanctioned the imprisonment, and/or torture and death of innocent human beings?

[el_bryanto]

34. I'm Mormon.

I don't agree with my religion on those issues.

Bryant

[Zorra]

43. Does the Mormon Church pay you to post here? nt

[el_bryanto]

47. No. I don't know where that is coming from. nt

[whathehell]

156. Does the Atheist Alliance for America pay YOU to post here??

sa

[Kurska]

199. Wait, that was an option?

[Zorra]

355. They pink slipped me when they found out I wasn't an atheist. nt

[Zorra]

49. Do you feel it is ok to support an organization that deliberately harms others,

as long as you don't agree with them on everything?

[el_bryanto]

50. You didn't answer my question above - why do you think the Mormon Church is paying me to post here?

And that's a simplistic way of asking the question, so the answer I gave wouldn't really be meaningfuly.
'
Bryant

[Zorra]

60. If your religion funded organizations that denied African Americans the right to marry,

would you still give them money, and still wish to be part of this organization?

http://www.hrc.org/nomexposed/section/religious-ties

[el_bryanto]

61. Am I on trial? I don't support NOM

Many Mormons do - I disagree with that and I have spoken up on it.

Bryant

[Zorra]

89. No. You posted an OP about religion being dissed in GD. I'm trying to

discuss the some of the reasons why religion is getting dissed in GD.

The reason I asked if you were paid by the Church to post here is that I had to be sure you were debating from a personal standpoint that you genuinely believed, and not supporting an organization for profit.

My entire point here is that the reason religions gets dissed is because they often promote harmful things, that cause their followers to support doing harmful things to innocent people.

Most DUers are liberals. If the followers of religions didn't do bad things to innocent people, we would not be having this discussion.

I'm personally trying to understand why people voluntarily support religious organizations that do things that they believe are wrong.

If someone really believes in their heart that something that their religion teaches, or does, is not in accordance to the will of God, why bother following a clearly misguided religion that doesn't really get it? Why not simply join a religious organization that does not support harming others, where you can engage in fellowship with like minded individuals who understand that it is wrong to harm innocent people?

If you want to know why liberals here may diss religion, consider the possibility that it is because many of them want to prevent people who believe in, and support, religions from causing further harm to innocent people under the auspices that it is their religion that causes them to try to control and harm others.

Yes, many people believe all thing religious or spiritual beliefs are total woo. But they wouldn't be trashing religion or spiritual beliefs here if religious people would stop hurting others in the name of religion. Because they really couldn't care less about what you believe in, as long as what you believe in doesn't hurt innocent people.

It's not rocket science.Most of the trash talk we've seen here lately stemmed from Muslims recently killing people in the name of religion, and from the Pope telling us it is wrong to insult religions that support harming innocent people, and to insult the religion of those who deliberately harm to others because they believe that is what their religion wants them to do.

[el_bryanto]

92. There's a long answer to that question

It has to do with the totality of my religious belief; the things that my faith teaches that I agree with - of which there are more than there are points that I disagree with. But I don't think it would be worthwhile to go through today.

Bryant

[joeglow3]

36. Cute. You think there would be no war or hate if religion disappeared.

[Zorra]

45. No, but war and hate really don't need any extra help, IMO. nt

[joeglow3]

93. I can agree with that

[HappyMe]

40. Do you think that every person that attends services

and believes in God adheres to every single thing that their religion says?

If you do, you had better rethink that position.

[Zorra]

62. No. Better to trust in God than in religion.

But why bother supporting an organization that teaches or does things that you consider to be wrong, and clearly understands less about God than you do?

[HappyMe]

66. I find your views about people with beliefs to be pretty simplistic.

Just as there are many shades of Democrats, there are many shades of believers. There are conservative churches and there are those that are liberal.

If I want things in a particular religious belief to begin to change, the way to do it isn't to run away.

[Zorra]

104. I get the liberal church/conservative church thing. I have no problem with

people who do not harm others in the name of their religion, who don't support religions that actively harm others, or who don't support religions that actively espouse harming others.

This discussion began with an OP that posed a question about DUers dissing religion.

Many followers of religions are actively hurting other people. Religions, and followers of religions, have been doing this since the dawn of human consciousness. Liberals generally genuinely don't care for organizations or followers of organizations that harm innocent people.

I doubt that Jesus is real pleased about all the harm that has been done by the misguided people who have done so much harm to so many in his name.

I'm not saying people should run away from God, etc

I'm saying that they should run away from the religions that use God as a vehicle to spread hate and cause harm. If they gave a religion, and nobody came, the religion couldn't do any harm.

But yeah, i suppose you're right, I imagine my views on spirituality have become pretty simple over the years.

"God is love", "Love your neighbor", and "Do to others what you would have them do to you". Childlike. But that's just me.

I would never presume I have the right to tell people what they should believe, but fully reserve the right ask people to consider if what they believe in, and/or support, is causing harm to innocent people, and to try to stop them from harming others if it is.

Challenging something directly is the opposite of running away from it; going along with something, being silent when you clearly see that something is causing harm, that's running away.

If you don't directly challenge your religious organization up close and personal when you know it is doing something wrong, for fear of ostracism, don't deceive yourself into believing that you are trying to change it.

[rug]

127. That's just swell.

But here's a question for you. How do you propose to do this?

People who believe in religion have killed millions and they will eventually kill the planet if the rest of us don't prevent them from doing so.

[Zorra]

356. Prevent conservatives from gaining political power would be my first choice. nt

[uppityperson]

138. Wrong "his discussion began with an OP that posed a question about DUers dissing religion".

It specifically states "Religious Believers", not "religion".

[ND-Dem]

29. Right, religion is what's killing the planet and the people on it. lol.

[greyl]

37. With core ideas like "God made this temporal world for man to conquer and rule", and

"there is only one right way to live", salvationist religions certainly don't have a history of fostering life on this planet.

[ND-Dem]

270. contrary to what you may believe, the christian religion has never been a monolith. and is still

not.

anymore than any other religion is.

apparently the only monolithic faith tradition is atheism.

[Zorra]

42. The religion is the basis for the killing. 4 killed in Niger ~

Muslims protest Charlie Hebdo prophet cartoon; 4 killed in Niger

KARACHI, Pakistan -- Muslim anger flared over a French satirical weekly's latest caricature of the Prophet Muhammad, with four people reported killed and dozens injured at a protest Friday in the West African country of Niger, and violent clashes between demonstrators and police in Pakistan, Jordan and Algeria.

Supporters say the cartoon on the cover of Charlie Hebdo is a defiant expression of free speech following a terrorist attack on the publication's Paris offices that killed 12 people on Jan. 7, but many Muslims viewed it as another attack on their religion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/muslims-protest-charlie-hebdo-prophet-cartoon-4-killed-in-niger/


It's not the religion, it's the people who believe in and follow the religionthat are doing the killing.

[ND-Dem]

44. The basis for the killing is power politics. Religion is a tool of the powerful. Witness how our

own government allied with and armed the mujhadeen, and how the Saudis fund and arm various 'Islamic terrorists".

[Zorra]

48. Sometimes, maybe. Governments have certainly used religious believers to

voluntarily do their dirty work fairly often throughout history. This often happens when people believe in religion.

The Crusades were military campaigns sanctioned by the Latin Roman Catholic Church during the High Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages. In 1095 Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to holy places in and near Jerusalem. Many historians and some of those involved at the time, like Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, give equal precedence to other papal-sanctioned military campaigns undertaken for a variety of religious, economic, and political reasons, such as the Albigensian Crusade, the Aragonese Crusade, the Reconquista, and the Northern Crusades.[1] Following the First Crusade there was an intermittent 200-year struggle for control of the Holy Land, with six more major crusades and numerous minor ones. In 1291, the conflict ended in failure with the fall of the last Christian stronghold in the Holy Land at Acre, after which Roman Catholic Europe mounted no further coherent response in the east.

Some historians see the Crusades as part of a purely defensive war against Islamic conquest; some see them as part of long-running conflict at the frontiers of Europe; and others see them as confident, aggressive, papal-led expansion attempts by Western Christendom. Crusading attracted men and women of all classes. The massacres involved were mainly attributed as being caused by disorder, an epidemic of ergotism and economic distress.[2] The Byzantine Empire was unable to recover territory lost during the initial Muslim conquests under the expansionist Rashidun and Umayyad caliphs in the Arab–Byzantine Wars and the Byzantine–Seljuq Wars; these conquests culminated in the loss of fertile farmlands[3] and vast grazing areas of Anatolia[4] in 1071, after a sound victory by the occupying armies of Seljuk Turks at the Battle of Manzikert. Urban II sought to reunite the Christian church under his leadership by providing Emperor Alexios I with military support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

[ND-Dem]

74. sometimes used religion? almost always used religion, including ramping up religious feeling and

creating religions.

the right wing in the US basically recreated religion in the US after the increased areligiosity of the depression, through the use of propaganda.

organized religion is everywhere a tool of state power.

[AlbertCat]

184. The basis for the killing is power politics.

Religion is just ancient government. Religion IS power politics.

[ND-Dem]

202. I don't disagree, but the most powerful governments today are no longer religious. They just

manipulate the religious.

[AlbertCat]

222. but the most powerful governments today are no longer religious.

Dream on!

[DrDan]

63. the religion of greed is "what's killing the planet and the people on it"

not the worship of any deity - just the worship of $$$$$$$$$$

[ND-Dem]

71. agreed. but easier for the upper classes to blame it on religion.

[liberal_at_heart]

213. +1

[whathehell]

161. Thank you.

[Matrosov]

73. +1 n/t

[kelliekat44]

75. And yet there are billions who believe in a religion and have not killed anyone.

What a broad stroke. And the word "generally" does not make this less broad.

There are millions of "believers" who have done much good for human kind.

If one is not a believer in religion that is a personal choice just as believing in God or a God or a Creator or anything else is a personal choice. And merely identifying ones self as a "Christian" "Muslim" or "Jew" does not mean that one subscribes to or practices the tenants of any of those religions.

And who are "the rest of us?"

I don't dislike anyone because they are non-believers in whatever faith I practice or because they are atheists. I dislike pretenders to be the moral authority of the universe who leave no room for respect of the thinking, opinions of others, who would do no mortal, spiritual, or emotional, or physical harm to others.

[rug]

121. Complete and utter bullshit.

[okasha]

216. Chiliastic panic.

It's not just for.believers any more.

[Prophet 451]

211. Distinction without a difference

I believe in a god, I practice a religion. A religion is just a set of ideas about a god.

[liberal_at_heart]

212. Not true. I am a Buddhist who has no opinion on whether God exists or not.

Buddha found the question unanswerable and therefore irrelevant to improving daily life and the lessening of suffering. That is what I believe also.

[Prophet 451]

217. I'm not sure if Buddhism is a religion

I tend to think that, if it doesn't actually worship anything, it's a philosophy rather than a religion. Of course, if you prefer to describe your beliefs as a religion, it's not my business to gainsay you.

[liberal_at_heart]

218. I am a follower of Tibetan Buddhism and to many it is absolutely a religion with god like

beings. I use the images of these gods in my meditation because it helps me to focus on a visual image but I have no opinion on whether or not they actually exist. Whether they exist or not they help me achieve my meditation.

[LostOne4Ever]

257. I don't see merely believing (or not believing) in a god as making something a religion.

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Just because I believe there are such things as Gorillas, doesn't mean that I am a Gorilliaist. Just because I don't believe that Betty Crocker was a historical person who ever actually existed doesn't make me an ACrockerologist.

To me, (for what that is worth) religion is a revealed truth(s) about how one should live their life. Theistic religions claim that secret is to get right with the god(s), non theistic religion describe abstract concepts like "the Tao" or flow of the universe.

Then there is always the Wikipedia definition as well.[/font]

[Prophet 451]

258. Wiki's definition isn't bad

Yours, however, wouldn't be able to describe my own faith as I accept the existence of god (theistic) but don't want to "get right" with him, considering him unworthy of worship.

[LostOne4Ever]

261. Well in your case

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I would say that the revealed truth is that "God" is a colossal asshole. So rather than getting right with god, its is struggling against his tyranny.

That said, does your religion have some sort of moral code with how to live one's life in defiance of god? Because the two big parts of my definition rely on a "revealed truth" and how to live one's life.

In traditional Christianity/Islam/etc the revealed truth is that there is a god with a set of rule of how not to become a human smoore in his underground campfire. Live life by those rules and you don't get cooked.

In Buddhism, as I understand it, the truth is that we are constantly forced to suffer from being reborn into this world and by living our life a certain way we can end the cycle of reborn.

In Taoism, the revealed truth is that there is a flow or way (Tao) with how the universe works and by living a certain way we can work with that flow to achieve peace, fulfillment, and enlightenment.

Does your religion has a moral code or suggested way to live life?[/font]

[Prophet 451]

263. Not exactly

We're an experiential faith. Most of each individual's approach to the faith is constructed through personal gnosis (communion with the deity). There seems to be only one universally agreed moral rule and it's the same one you find in almost every religion and belief system: Treat others as you would like to be treated. "For the lot of man to improve, the seer must become the do-er", i.e. it's not enough just to see someone's plight and pray for them. Pray if you like but more importantly, get up off your knees and help them. I would want someone to help me when I'm in trouble so it's my duty to help others when they need it. God has fucked us over, it's imperative not to add to that by fucking over one another.

[LostOne4Ever]

265. I guess my definition was faulty then

Last edited Sun Jan 18, 2015, 05:51 AM - Edit history (1)

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Thank you for the lesson in your religion. I will try and revise my personal definition.

That said, I am a pretty harsh critic of religions that I feel promote bigotry, but I am not against religion itself per say. If I find a religion that I feel does not promote such things, I am pretty accepting of that belief.

I find your beliefs fascinating, and from what you have told me of your religion (despite its reputation) it sounds like your faith meets that criteria (of good religion). The only other religion that I have come across (and there are many I don't know of) that I felt that way was [font style="font-family:'Brush Script MT',''Lucida handwriting','forte',cursive;" size=5 color=crimson]PHILOSOPHICAL[/font] Taoism.

So, if you ever come across me critiquing religion, I beg that understand that my criticism is not directed toward you or your religion. I have a bad tendency to broad brush occasionally.

Please feel free to give me a good verbal slap if it sounds like I am lumping your religion in with the others.[/font]

[Prophet 451]

269. M father is a Taoist :)

His beliefs have probably influenced, if not my faith, then the way I approach my faith.

No-one should ask that you tolerate intolerance. I have had loud screaming matches with the fundies who complain that we don't tolerate their homophobia or racism and "aren't liberals supposed to be tolerant?". Asking anyone to be tolerant of intolerance is just playing word games, just trying to smuggle the unacceptable in through a loophole. We should never tolerate bigotry of any sort, whether it's based in religion, tradition, ethnocentrism or whatever. Father Lucifer is gay and straight, male and female, black and white and both and neither, as the whim strikes him.

To give us the gift of moral self-determination, the capacity to make our own moral decisions, to go from "thou shalt not" to "I will not" (the apple in teh garden granted us knowledge of good and evil, which lets us determine our own morality), Lucifer sacrificed his good name. Worshiping a being who has been the subject of such hatred over the centuries, you learn to be accepting of the victimized, to consider each person as an individual quite apart from what is said about them.

[TexasProgresive]

9. Why are these religious posts in GD

RELIGION

Threads about current events related to religion, and threads about church-state issues are permitted under normal circumstances.

Threads about the existence/non-existence of God, threads discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of religion in general, and threads discussing the truth/untruth of religious dogma are not permitted under normal circumstances and should be posted under Religion.

Open discussion of religion is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025307978

1. I don't find these posts in GD particularly about current events.
2. Speaks for itself.
3. Perhaps this can be rationalized as an excuse.

[el_bryanto]

10. Because the moderators choose not to enforce that rule

I don't know why not.

[Sissyk]

17. Please read below.

It's in the pinned thread at the top of GD.

Open discussion of religion is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia.

[Gormy Cuss]

52. Your OP could be interpreted as disruptive meta

and yet it hasn't been locked.

BTW, there are no moderators anymore.

[el_bryanto]

57. Well you should definitely alert on me. See what happens. nt

[Gormy Cuss]

58. Alerting sends it to a jury. The topic was 'moderator' (i.e. host) locking. n/t

[uppityperson]

139. Because Skinner told the Hosts to not enforce that rule.

[treestar]

14. High profile event

involving religion.

[Sissyk]

16. Hi, TexasProgresive

If you read the pinned thread at the top of GD, it says this:

Open discussion of religion is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia.

This is that time. Things will settle down and go back to "normal" eventually.

[TexasProgresive]

18. If you read my post, you would see I posted that.

I just think its a rationalization to clutter up GD with these posts. Explain to me how religion in general is heavily covered all across the newsmedia. Islam is but few of these posts are about Islam just religion. If they were where they belong one could "Trash" the forum and not have to see them.

[el_bryanto]

39. Yes - after a few days of constant hosility and attacks a few more religious DUers will decide that

DU isn't really for them. They will go somewhere else. That's fine - if they are religious they probably don't belong here anyway.

Bryant

[uppityperson]

140. "if they are religious they probably don't belong here anyway"? W.T.F? Clarify please

[el_bryanto]

146. DU is hostile to religious DUers

I am religious - and I don't want to be here anymore. At least not for a while. I'm guessing others will feel the same way.

Bryant

[uppityperson]

147. Thank you, I understand now and indeed. I agree.

There is no need to take advantage of a situation to be nasty to others but even on DU it happens too often. Discussion without nastiness, without such negative attitudes. It is ok to disagree, it is ok to have a different opinion, but why be rude and insulting? There is a huge difference between "I do not believe in God" and "you and your sky daddy beliefs". The first is meant to inform and openly discuss, the second to insult and shut down any discussion or understanding.

It gets old.

[whathehell]

164. I agree, Bryant

and I totally understand your wanting to leave over it, but please don't.

You're a good DUer and we need you. Don't let the religion bigots drive you away.

[DrDan]

182. I am not religious and completely agree - it is

[Prophet 451]

215. I'm starting to feel the same way

Been here about 13 years and it's only been teh last eight months or so that I've felt like a crash test dummy because of my faith.

[Warren Stupidity]

280. The internet in general is hostile to bullshit.

Bullshit that in other contexts would have some cultural history that granted it a privileged immunity from attack, like for example, religion, is not shielded similarly on anonymous discussion boards on the internets. Likewise, instead of a group of same minded (and frequently same religion) people glad handing each other about how nice their religion is, you get a random assortment of strangers who have little vested interest in pretending that ridiculous beliefs are anything other than ridiculous.

Of course you can shield yourself from others pointing out that your beliefs are nonsense by not posting about your beliefs or by confining your utterances to protected forums here and elsewhere, but as you know, when the shit hits the fan, as it did in Paris and Nigeria and Pakistan over the last month, when religion is once again manifestly a problem, it will be very difficult to avoid getting an earful of stuff you don't want to hear.

[thucythucy]

305. As if to demonstrate the point...

You know Warren, just a personal comment, if I may.

You seem awfully certain about what is "bullshit" and terribly eager to push an anti-belief agenda. On another OP, about what the GOP is doing to the SSDI program, you weighed in without even knowing, evidently, what SSDI was. Doesn't that constitute a form of "BS"?

To me, as an agnostic, what's happened isn't people at DU "posting about their beliefs" but rather you posting OP after OP attacking those who believe. In a number of these threads I've responded, asked questions, suggested readings (for instance, "The Varieties of Religious Experience" and "Moral Man, Immoral Society&quot to which you haven't bothered to respond. I understand, you have a solidly formed point of view about which you're not in the least open to discussion. Kinda reminds me of some Jesus freaks I know.

Really, you resemble nothing so much as the most avid, Bible-thumping evangelical blasting his message at every opportunity.

The Democratic Party, last time I checked, did not have a platform against belief. And very many--if not most--progressive Democratic heroes, from JFK to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to FDR to RFK to Jimmy Carter... the list goes on and on--were and are people of faith. As were Gandhi, and Malcolm X, and the Berrigan Brothers, and Cesar Chavez...

I've been critical of religion myself, but there's a difference between criticism and outright contempt, between assertion and flat out arrogance.

I get it: you wish for an end to all belief and all religion. Just as others wish to convert everyone to their particular version of the True Faith.

Personally I find both extremes obnoxious, as, evidently, do the plurality of people answering this poll.

Do you really mean to drive progressive Democrats who are believers off this discussion board? If that's your objective, well, mission accomplished, as several frequent posters have now said they're leaving because of the climate you have had such a large hand in fostering.

What is it you're trying to demonstrate, aside from your own vastly superior intellect?

It certainly ain't love and peace, that's for sure. I can't see how this helps progressive Democrats move an inch forward on our various agendas.

This post may be hidden, but there it is. I think it had to be said.

[Warren Stupidity]

309. when I learned I was wrong I said so.

Are you agnostic about Zeus?

Are you agnostic about Santa Claus?

Are you agnostic about creationism?

Are you agnostic about global warming?

Are you agnostic about intelligent design?

By the way, produce evidence of gods and I'll change my opinion. I'm not sitting on the fence waiting for that to happen, clinging to an improbable agnosticism because there is perhaps a 0.00000001 chance that some "deity" of some sort exists, said deity clearly having no consequence to the world we live in.

[thucythucy]

312. Whatever Warren.

This is obviously an issue of tremendous significance to you. As I said, you're on a mission, as much a zealot as any evangelical. They feel smug about being saved, you feel smug about being smart. And like a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness taking on a particular neighborhood, you've taken on Democratic Underground as your parish, mission, community of those who need to be "saved."

Contempt is such an ugly thing. Don't see that it produces much by way of votes or moving a progressive agenda.



Edited to add: and I notice in your "mea culpa" you refer to being corrected in your ignorance as being "bashed." You feel "bashed" about being corrected on a matter of simple fact, having little or nothing to do with your personal identity.

And yet you simply cannot fathom why people who have encountered your abject scorn around their personal beliefs and lived experiences might feel even the slightest degree of hurt.

Evidently being an atheist has done nothing to enhance your sense of empathy, nor of irony.

[BlueJazz]

374. You would be greatly missed. I, for one, enjoy your posts.

[whathehell]

170. That may be what they want -- Don't give it to them. n/t

[ND-Dem]

271. I think so. The hostility level is so high, it sure seems like the intent is to get rid of people.

[whathehell]

279. Exactly,

and that is EXACTLY why I won't leave.

[thucythucy]

359. The same thing has happened to some of our most wonderful feminists here.

Redqueen, for example, evidently got so sick of all the hostility thrown at her for posting feminist material that she just left. I think other women have done so as well.

Which is a shame, because RedQueen almost always posted interesting and informative OPs, and I always would look forward to seeing what she had to say.

Sad, really sad.

[edgineered]

11. Who to thank?

Do we thank the atheists for their persistance, for their ability to show time and again the intolerance of the religionists here? Or maybe we should thank the religionists for pushing neutral parties off the fence and away from their side.

Either way, any who follow the threads know that being a 'good' atheist has no effect and deserves no credit. Over the course of the past few months many here have expressed their lack of belief, an indication of which way the trend is going. Trying to be a good atheist ended for me in this time span.

Many thanks to the 'bad' atheists!

[el_bryanto]

12. By intolerance you mean that religionists

Continue to be religious?

Bryant

[edgineered]

15. The older I get,

the more times I need to read even the simplest of things.

The mind is a wonderful thing though, eventually the concepts sink in when the desire to understand exists. For those having these types of problems I would suggest reading more.

[el_bryanto]

21. I'm so tired of this insulting bullshit

Why do you assume that I haven't read a fair amount on this subject? Is it just a belief that all religious folk are ill-informed simpletons?

Bryant

[whathehell]

166. So am I.

The outrageous question you were asked about "being paid to post here" made me

wonder if they were starting a purge.

[ND-Dem]

31. in what way does that constitute a response to the question you were asked? maybe you need

to reread and let the concepts 'sink in' before you answer.

[rug]

133. Oooh, by all means, produce these threads.

Either way, any who follow the threads know that being a 'good' atheist has no effect and deserves no credit.

Or are you just feeling persecuted today?

[edgineered]

191. ba ba ba ba

begin anew
become aware

be a bad atheist!

[rug]

193. Ah, no link!

[LittleBlue]

19. Unquestionably. And it always has been.

I'm a solid atheist, btw.

[Iggo]

24. This poll is bullshit.

[el_bryanto]

25. Thank you for your response - why is it bullshit?

Is it bullshit to ask the question? or did I ask it wrong?

Bryant

[Iggo]

27. That was one of the options you provided in your poll.

I chose it.

[el_bryanto]

30. And then you posted to underline that you think this poll is bullshit

Fair enough - but I am asking why you came to that conclusion.

Bryant

[LittleBlue]

72. Why?

He gave one definite answer to both positive and negative, and also one lukewarm to each. And also a disapproval of the poll option.

It definitely doesn't resemble a push poll. Seems pretty well thought out.

[Iggo]

114. It was one of the available options of the poll.

I chose that option.

You're going to have to be satisfied with that.

[MrMickeysMom]

38. Personally, I haven't seen the hate of people associated WITH religion, so much as religion...

You all know what a touchy subject religion and politics are… So, as generations of DUers are growing since it's inception, this fuels up even further some differences in opinion over-

1) The hypocrisy of religion

2) The hypocrisy of political parties

Both are falling away from organized society, I THINK, and that change IN MY OPINION, is scary because -

1) Where am I going to go when I need solace?

2) Who will stand up for MEEEE?

[Faux pas]

41. I can't think of ONE

GOOD thing religion has ever done. Killing for god/allah and fighting for jesus/mohammad is ridiculous, and that's all I see as far as it goes.

[el_bryanto]

46. I take it you are one of those who believes that if someone does something good

and attributes it to religion - that doesn't count?

Bryant

[Faux pas]

51. I'm looking for any example of something good

religion has done Bryant, not something good someone has done and attributed it to religion. Aren't they two different things?

[el_bryanto]

54. Religion is unable to do anything except through the people who believe in it.

Religion is a concept - without believers in that religion it effectively doesn't exist.

Bryant

[Faux pas]

84. That's right, and

Amen to that!

[el_bryanto]

88. So if someone goes and shoots up a bunch of cartoonists and claims he is doing it for religious

reasons, should that be an indication that religion is bad?

Bryant

[Faux pas]

90. I'm not here to debate with you all day, k?

There is nothing good about religion, that is my opinion and I don't want to belabor it until the end of time. Thanks.

[el_bryanto]

95. OK. Kind of chickenshit, but ok. Have a good day. nt

[uppityperson]

143. An hour and a half is "until the end of time" or "all day"? huh. nt

[jberryhill]

369. Depends on when the cows come home

[whathehell]

173. LOL.

[uppityperson]

141. Can you think of one good thing a religious person has ever done?

Last edited Sat Jan 17, 2015, 08:40 PM - Edit history (1)

OP is about Religious Believers, (ETA) not about religions. I can think of many good things religious believers have done. This is in reply to your "I can't think of ONE GOOD thing religion has ever done."

[whathehell]

169. Martin Luther King Jr. did some good things, wouldn't you say?

[uppityperson]

189. Very much so.My reply was to "I can't think of ONE GOOD thing religion has ever done."

Since the OP was about Religious Believers, I wrote what I did. I can think of many good things religious believers have done.

[whathehell]

192. Right.

Did it ever occur to you that those good acts may have been INSPIRED by the religion

those people were following, or do you just enjoy splitting hairs between "religion"

and "religious people"?

[uppityperson]

196. Yes, that did occur to me, thank you for checking. The OP was about "religious believers"

hence that is what I was addressing. Is it possible to be a religious believer without being part of an organized religion? What is the difference between being a religious believer and being spiritual?

hint, I am not the enemy here.

[whathehell]

284. Okay..

Yes, I think it is possible to be a religious believer without being part of an organized

religion. I'm not sure what the difference is between being "spiritual" and being a

religious believer -- It probably varies by the person. Being "spiritual" likely

involves believing in a "higher power" and what's often called "the golden rule" -- doing

unto others what you would have done to you, etc.

So, you're not 'the enemy', huh? Glad to hear it, but because of the insane hostility

here toward all things religious, I'd prefer to comment on that subject via a

pm to you.

[DrDan]

186. Mother Teresa has done many good deeds - do you deny that?

[uppityperson]

188. Indeed, many have. My reply was to "I can't think of ONE GOOD thing religion has ever done."

Since the OP was about Religious Believers, I wrote what I did. I can think of many good things religious believers have done.

[Warren Stupidity]

286. You might want to do a bit of research on that one.

Her "clinic" in Calcutta was a dump where ill-trained people provided inadequate hospice care, including a deliberate lack of analgesics. The millions of dollars in donations went primarily toward founding new convents and not to the clinic.

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa#Quality_of_medical_care

[DrDan]

291. the post asked "Can you think of one good thing a religious person has done"

are you saying she has not done anything good?

[mr blur]

292. Yes, name some.

Go on, then.

[DrDan]

293. ok - her work in creating a hospice for the poor in Calcutta

[whathehell]

306. Albert Schweitzer.

[Prophet 451]

220. Let me tell you a story

I was raised my my Grimmer (grandmother). She was devoutly Christian, albeit quietly so (fundies being virtually unknown here) and she drew a lot of strength and inspiration from her faith. She also devoted her entire adult life to caring for disabled and disturbed children. First, she was a pediatric nurse, the she ran a children's home and when she was forced to retire from that, she cajoled the local council into leasing her a big Victorian townhouse that she filled with disabled and disturbed kids who couldn't find foster parents elsewhere.

Over the course of her life, upwards of a hundred kids passed through her care and she sent all of them off to college or a job or an apprenticeship. The last one, a severely retarded woman called Rosie, was with her right up until she went into hospice care a couple of weeks before she died. She prayed every night, drew a lot of strength from her faith, but she was pro-gay, pro-choice and you'd never have known she was Christian unless you asked.

So that's one good thing religion has done, it has inspired good people to do great things. It has also given the world some amazing art.

[TorchTheWitch]

373. then you aren't thinking

Religion provides people with a set of personal beliefs that they can turn to for solace, comfort, strength, hope, calm, etc. in times when those things are desperately needed. It provides inspiration to do charitable things and a deeper reason to be a good person. It provides inspiration for all kinds of positive things either personally or for others.

If all you're able to see about religion is the extraordinarily few extremists who USE religion as an excuse to do terrible things and to hide behind in order to attempt to legitimize those terrible things, than you've just got your eyes firmly shut.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. Hostile to certain aspects of many religions, but not 'to religious believers'

There are aspects of many religions, or denominations, that piss off DUers overall - misogyny, homophobia. These always get criticism, and rightly so. I don't think GD has been having a go at all religions - I can't remember anything against religions who have good records on human rights. Unsurprisingly, the "depicting our prophet is bad" complaints of many Muslims have got short shrift recently. But that's not being mean to 'religious believers' in general.

[Anansi1171]

56. Have religious believers been hostile to general discussions lately?

[DrDan]

64. not that I have noticed . . .

more the non-believers

and I say this as a non-believer

[whathehell]

174. Answer: NO. For one thing, they're generally too busy defending themselves

from the continual sneers and insults directed at them from the religion haters

on DU who are plentiful.

Even though DU rules stipulate that we are to be "respectful" of other DUers

it's widely ignored when it comes to DUers claiming ANY tie to a religion,

most notably Christianity of any sort.

Haters gonna hate.

[Prophet 451]

226. Not really

According to a poll I ran a few months ago, atheists outnumber any faction of believers here. As people of faith, we've become a small, embattled minority here.

[olddots]

59. I think we shouldn't be allowwd to discuss religion or politics

[beam me up scottie]

171. LMAO!

[Yo_Mama]

287. Yes, the forum should be restricted to cat videos and mutual exchanges of congratulations

After a time, we may consider opening it up further to dog videos. Then the cat and dog wars can resume.

[thucythucy]

65. Why no option for agnostics?

Or did I miss something?

I'm an agnostic, and I believe much of the discussion here has been very hostile to believers.

It isn't people questioning the homophobic, sexist, or otherwise objectionable portions of this or that scripture or practice. I think there's lots that can and should be criticized in that regard, and that hypocrisy is always a fit subject for satire and criticism.

But to me it verges into overt hostility when people proclaim that all believers are either evil or stupid or mentally ill. As opposed to all the logical, mentally healthy, intellectually and morally superior atheists.

I was just on a thread where a poster told me he (or she) thought Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was "gullible" for having faith. Another poster, on another thread (the one that said religions have a "problem" with "smart people&quot told me he thought Dr. King was basically bullshitting about his faith. Because Dr. King--obviously a highly intelligent man--couldn't possibly really be religious, could he?

That basic supposition that all believers are deluded morons is what bothers me. And in purely political terms, I can't see how attacking the beliefs of millions of voters is a winning strategy. One particularly prolific atheist poster wrote an OP saying progressives should be more like conservative Republicans in our willingness to attack Islam. There are literally millions of Moslems in this country--last I saw they outnumbered Jews. How attacking their basic faith --- and I'm not talking about violent homicidal zealots here, but average, law-abiding, American Moslems--is somehow going to gain us more votes is beyond me, and was never really explained in that OP. Let alone members of denominations like the United Church of Christ, or the Metropolitan Community Church (with a predominantly LGBT membership) whose members tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

I have many good friends who are atheists, who are believers, and who are, like me, on the fence. I used to recommend Democratic Underground to ALL my friends as a great place to get news and read the views of other progressives. But no more. (Ditto with regards friends of mine who are feminists, but that's a whole other OP). I would feel embarrassed and uncomfortable recommending this forum to my progressive friends of faith, given the fierce antagonism and hurtful caricatures I see of believers.

All of which makes me very sad.

[whathehell]

190. So am I, and I share your views and concerns.

It's become VERY ugly and intolerant here.

I'm wondering when they are just going to get honest and call it

"Atheist Underground", as those seem to be the only people tolerated here,

at least when any discussion of religion comes up.

As to your question about Agnostics, they are lumped together with the

Atheists, unfortunately, and, because of the ubiquitous bile-spewing of so

many of them, I'm not comfortable there.

One possibility might be to petition the administrators for a separate "Insult Free"

Agnostics Forum...I don't know, because, like you, I'm getting disgusted with the allover

attitude here.

[hrmjustin]

67. I feel very unwelcomed here as a person of faith and I have decided to take a DU break.

It was a combination of things and people. Some of it can't be helped because of the current events brought the issue of religion to the fore, but I need a break. I will remain a group host for the 4 groups I host but I took my name off of the forum hosting list and will not be joining mirt this term.

I promise not to be long on my break but I will not be a punching bag anymore.

I wish you all the best.


Justin

[kwassa]

77. You deserve a break.

You contribute many positive things to this place, which is very difficult in regards to religion.

[hrmjustin]

333. Thanks so much.

[thucythucy]

155. Thank you for all your posts.

I look forward to your return.

[hrmjustin]

323. Thanks! i had enough of silence.

[Peacetrain]

195. I know exactly what you mean

And it has been incessant as of the last couple of weeks.. the feeding frenzy is on.. and sometimes it is best just to step back, because once it starts, no amount of trying to reason with anyone is going to work..

[hrmjustin]

324. i am back. standing down is a bad idea.

[Peacetrain]

328. Hang in there ...

[hrmjustin]

330. I will my friend.

[Peacetrain]

331. .....

[truebrit71]

342. ROFLMAO!!!

..."standing down" ?? What is this 'Call of Duty'?

[hrmjustin]

345. Lol i am glad you got a good kick out of it.

No duty my friend. Just a figure of speech.

[Prophet 451]

227. May the road rise up to meet you

We will look forward to your return.

[BainsBane]

228. I have that in my kitchen

Just as my Grandmother did. I will always think of her when I hear it.

[Prophet 451]

230. I hope it brought a smile then

[BainsBane]

232. It did. Thanks.

[Prophet 451]

235. You're very welcome n/t

[hrmjustin]

325. Thanks my friend. remaining silent is just not for me.

[hrmjustin]

316. I got sick of my break!

[rug]

318. Welcome back!

They don't really use ignore either.

[hrmjustin]

321. No ignore, it is too boring.

Last edited Sun Jan 18, 2015, 06:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Playing nice just doesn't cut it anymore.

Time to stand up for my beliefs. I sent a note to skinner that I got sick of this break.

[great white snark]

320. LOL good!

Your input is very much needed and appreciated here Justin.

[hrmjustin]

322. Thank you my friend!

[Prophet 451]

339. lol, welcome back

I often feel I should take a break but, like you, the lure is just too strong. "Just when I thought I was out... They pull me back in".

[hrmjustin]

340. That explains it exactly. My heart belongs to this place.

[Prophet 451]

341. For myself, I'm thinking a vacation might be in order

I have a lot of studying I need to do and I'm only functional some of the time (mental illness) and with this place being so hostile to believers lately...

I tell you what it feels like. I'm bisexual and before I felt able to be open about my sexuality, I'd have to sit and listen as homophobic jokes and slurs were made around me. That's somewhat similar to how I feel here a lot of the time. Either I turn off what is (for as much as I joke and play to the image of devil-worshiper) a very important part of my life or I have to ignore the constant bashing of belief and believers and atheists proselytizing their opinions. Either I suffer in silence or I get into a big fight about it. Bashing believers (and I'm not talking about honest criticism, that's fine, but a lot of the time, it's just bashing) is acceptable here, even encouraged, alert on any of the insults and the jury will tell you that the insults are true and you should just suck it up.

I dunno, dude. I only have so much time when I'm awake, online and connected to this reality. Do I really want to spend it wading through so much hostility here...

[hrmjustin]

343. You need to take care of yourself first.

You need to do what is good for you at this moment. You have done a great job st fighting back but it has taken a lot out of you. I know what it is like and it is not easy. As a gay man and a believer it is not always easy to defend faith here to our friends.

Take care of yourself first. Either take some days ofv or just ignore some forums for awhile.

[Prophet 451]

352. Yeah, I think you're right

See you in a few days, mate. Peace with you.

[hrmjustin]

353. And peace be with you.

[truebrit71]

344. You actually have to leave in order for it to be considered a break...

... less than twelve hours really doesn't cut it... but now you can get back to complaining about being mistreated and picked on whilst you ban people in your sandbox after just one post because you know, religious privilege totally isn't a thing...

[hrmjustin]

346. I never said religious privilege is not a thing.

I said i don't think it exists here as it does IRL. You are welcome to disagree.

As for our sandbox we ban people who we agree violate the rules.

[truebrit71]

348. Sorry, what was that? I was taking a break from DU...

... but i'm back now. .. fighting fit and ready for duty!

[hrmjustin]

350. Thank God!

[Puglover]

378. I guess a break from DU

now means going to the fridge and getting fresh ice.

This place just keeps getting better and better.

Too funny.

[Mariana]

362. Glad you came back!

We don't talk much, but I enjoy reading your posts.

Don't forget what Jesus said in Matthew 5: 11 and 12.

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

[hrmjustin]

363. Thank you very much my friend and I am glad you enjoy my posts.

Hugs and thanks for the encouragement.

[NaturalHigh]

68. It's always been hostile to believers.

A lot of people take pride in doing their best to try to offend people of faith.

[whathehell]

168. Yes, I've sometimes wondered if the site's name

shouldn't be changed to "Atheist Underground".

[justiceischeap]

69. DU is often hostile towards religion(s) not just GD

because many on DU see the harm that religion has brought to politics and our daily lives.

I don't know when the rule was made that people can't be critical of religion or that it's okay to go on a killing spree because someone was critical of a religious figure. If a person is so weak in their faith that they are daunted by religious critique, then I suggest they look at why religious critique hurts their feelings or what makes it necessary for them to kill a bunch of people because someone else was critical of a religious figure.

[el_bryanto]

76. wait what? Are you saying that as a religious believer who is tired of DU telling him how stupid he

is I should look at "what makes it necessary for them to kill a bunch of people because someone else was critical of a religious figure." I don't remember killing anybody, let along a bunch of people.

Bryant

[rug]

137. If that is your conclusion, I think you have been hostile to history.

Not to mention economics and politics.

[Prophet 451]

229. "It was her fault for dressing like that"

You are saying that if people of faith are attacked, it's their fault for holding a faith. Blaming the victim.

[ND-Dem]

272. logic, history and fact fail

[cheapdate]

70. If your belief is firm, why would you care?

I understand there are lines not to be crossed in civil discussion. But I do not believe that questioning or challenging religious beliefs are off-limits. Question everything. No free passes.

[el_bryanto]

78. And if a believer says "I've questioned my beliefs, and on reflection I find them to be true."

Do you assume that he or she hasn't actually questioned their beliefs?

Bryant

[cheapdate]

80. No, that would be tantamount to calling him or her a liar.

[el_bryanto]

81. Well I've heard it said that believers are all intellectually dishonest or delusional

But perhaps you don't ascribe to that point of view.

Bryant

[cheapdate]

83. No, I don't. People believe all kinds of things.

I have my own speculative beliefs, the "mushroom mind" for instance.

I'm happy to discuss beliefs, and if you're game, I'm happy to challenge them.

[Prophet 451]

231. the "mushroom mind"?

Do you mind explaining that expression?

[cheapdate]

243. I believe that vast, interconnected, webs of fungal mycelium

compose a whole that is the "mushroom mind". A living entity for which terms such as "sentient" and "intelligent" are only approximate metaphors. Some people have claimed to have had mental contact with the mushroom mind.

[Prophet 451]

245. Fascinating idea

Can you direct me to some further information? I'd be interested in reading more.

[cheapdate]

248. Here you go:

http://www.psychedelic-library.org/munn.htm

http://www.vice.com/read/psilocybin-the-mushroom-and-terence-mckenna-439


It's not the specifics that are important to me, but the general idea that mycelial networks in fungus and neural networks in animals are analogues of a sort, and that mycelial networks are capable of sustaining a sentience and an intelligence that is possibly beyond our ability to perceive or to comprehend. That interconnected fungal bodies form a whole that is a single entity or "superorganism". That the collective entity has sensory abilities of such a subtle and slow-acting nature as to be undetectable by us. Perceptions that might operate on a timescale of days, or even years.

It's entirely possible.

[Prophet 451]

249. Thanks dude

I'll have a look at those later (I'm supposed to be working on an assignment for my counseling class).

[Warren Stupidity]

281. Oh get the freaking quote right.

Intellectually naive or dishonest.

You've mixed up the discussion over the distinction between religious beliefs and delusions with the discussion about intellectual honesty.

Both discussions were in a forum dedicated to the open discussion of belief and non-belief with the explicit understanding that there is no protection in that forum from criticism of religion.

Always the victim.

[uppityperson]

144. "there are lines not to be crossed in civil discussion", and that is the question by the OP.

Has it been crossed, has GD been hostile to religious believers.

[cheapdate]

172. By "hostile" I assume you mean mocking and unfriendly?

GD can be a tough environment, but why let it bother one? Engage and defend or move on. Challenge back. The stakes are actually pretty low.

[uppityperson]

179. I was quoting the OP, their question.

[cheapdate]

200. Two things went wrong...

I didn't read carefully, and you didn't punctuate a question properly!

[Prophet 451]

234. It becomes draining

The religion group is always host to far more threads attacking faith and believers than threads for us and anytime religion is mentioned in GD, it and believers are attacked as stupid, delusional, comparable to Santa, etc. Atheism might not be a faith but some atheists are just as adamant about proselytizing their beliefs and rubbishing the beliefs of others as any theist might be.

[cheapdate]

237. All true. That's the score.

[grossproffit]

79. I'm a believer and religion discussions don't bother me at all.

My faith allows me to discuss what I wish and keep an open mind at all times.

[Inkfreak]

85. GD can be hostile to anyone on any given day, imo.

Btw, I always click on "I like to vote!" In your polls. It just makes me laugh.

[Bluenorthwest]

86. I wonder if you'd care to launch a side by side comparison of shit said openly about LGBT people

and that which you get to count, with privilege flying high, as hostility. Let's note that in the 'faith community' a person who says LGBT people are disordered, defective and at war with God is considered 'gay friendly'. So what religious folks see as 'hostile' must be pretty fucking extreme or they are just hypocrites.

Let me offer an example of things said about LGBT people by current DUers that I see as hostile. You can offer an example that is similar about people of faith!!! Here goes:
"The openness and brazenness of the LBGT agenda and the media flaunting of gay marriages all across the country cost Dems dearly and threatens to do so in the future."

That was the morning of Nov 5th day after the election. What have you got? The person who wrote of brazen flaunting gays is in this thread, defending religion as we speak.

[el_bryanto]

87. The person who said that should be ashamed of themselves. I don't know if I'm expected to defend it

but that's awful that someone would say that.

Beyond that I don't see the point to a competition - you want me to find hurtful things said about believers while you find hurtful things said about LGBT people - seems like that would just end up being very depressing.

Why don't I just ask the next question - given some of the things you have said do you feel that DU in general should be hostile to religious folk?

Bryant

[Bluenorthwest]

91. The point is, if I am expected to endure such extreme hostility, I need to know if you are asking

for protection from hostility as bad as others demand that LGBT people endure, or if it is just some imaginary, hyperbolic claim made by folks who are just complaining about much lesser slights than they expect others to endure.
Another very good example from DU's past is the Rick Warren insults, in which LGBT people were called pony wanting poutragers for objecting to horrific denigrating language and the honoring of the man who spoke it. That was hostility to the extreme. This week, I see folks who claim empathy with insulted murderers who flat out demanded that LGBT people silently accept insult, denigration and hate speech. For the terrorists, they say 'I don't condone murder, but.....if you insult someone you should expect a strong reaction'. Rick Warren called us pedophiles and three weeks later this Party bowed it's collective head and prayed with him. That's hostile.
But I see you don't have any actual examples, standards or metrics to show how 'hostile' things are for 'believers' compared to other groups that are aggressively told not to complain when insulted by 'believers' such as Warren and his Committee of Defenders on DU, the Pony Shouters.

[el_bryanto]

94. I'm not saying I couldn't I'm saying it wouldn't accomplish anything.

You don't think much of religion and you don't think much of the religious, and I don't know that pointing out stuff said about the religious is going to change your mind.

Pony shouters?

Bryant

[Bluenorthwest]

97. I'm asking you to define your terms. There is really no reason for you to get personal and start

telling me what I think and characterizing my attitudes as if I can not and do not speak for myself. You do that to me and to others regularly. I find it to be disrespectful. Your entire response to me was a refusal to respond to my questions followed by a series of insults.
But really, don't try to tell me what I think, that sounds almost as if you are talking down to one you believe to be inferior to yourself.

[el_bryanto]

103. OK apparently you feel I didn't take this seriously enough s- let's go through it.

"I wonder if you'd care to launch a side by side comparison of shit said openly about LGBT people and that which you get to count, with privilege flying high, as hostility." I assume that by privilege flying high you mean religious privilege? That's not putting words in your mouth by the way that's just asking a question to make sure I understand. At any rate no I wouldn't care to.

Let's note that in the 'faith community' a person who says LGBT people are disordered, defective and at war with God is considered 'gay friendly'. So what religious folks see as 'hostile' must be pretty fucking extreme or they are just hypocrites. I'm guessing this refers to the Pope - I think this surrounds the period where Advocate magazine made him person of the year? At any rate I don't know if anybody is saying that about the Pope currently, I think you and others have sufficiently covered this, to the point that people are more aware of the totality of what he has said. While has made some good comments on economic equality issues, and may be making some improvements in the Catholic organization, he can't be seen as pro LGBT.

Let me offer an example of things said about LGBT people by current DUers that I see as hostile. You can offer an example that is similar about people of faith!!! Here goes:
"The openness and brazenness of the LBGT agenda and the media flaunting of gay marriages all across the country cost Dems dearly and threatens to do so in the future." As previously stated, I disagree with this statement and find it to be very nasty.

That was the morning of Nov 5th day after the election. What have you got? The person who wrote of brazen flaunting gays is in this thread, defending religion as we speak.I don't feel like this game of comparing insults will go anywhere so I decline to play.

Bryant

[Skittles]

153. I vote HYPOCRITES

[okasha]

219. Link?

[Bluenorthwest]

277. Sinc you aksed, here it is. I have had posts hidden for calling this bigotry to light and the author

is in this thread, and since the subject is 'are believers facing hostility' and LGBT face this level of hostility from 'believers' who are crying victim, I think is is a valid thing to point it out. I tried to get the OP to do this, OP refuses to engage and simply demands believers be treated as victims and absolved of all wrong for being hostile to LGBT posters.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025764803

[beam me up scottie]

327. That is fucking vile.

Then they deleted it when it blew up in their face.

Disgusting.

[Arugula Latte]

96. Has religion been hostile to women and gay people recently?

[Bluenorthwest]

98. I've just been told that is an unfair comparison to bring up.

I asked some really specific questions too.

[el_bryanto]

102. That's not what I said, please don't distort my words. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

132. Your words are right there to be seen. And you had no problem speaking for me, 'you think this and

'you'd say that'. And you did in fact refuse to make the comparison by offering any examples of hostility as you see it. I found that odd because in this thread you say things liked 'I've heard it said that all religious people, etc' so you claim to have heard these things and cite characterizations of them but when asked to show some you would not. Characterize, yes. Quote? No. Odd.

[TexasProgresive]

111. Have theists been hostile to women and LGBT people on DU recently?

The point is DU has its share of haters. Texas sucks so all Texans suck, the South sucks so all southerners suck, XY&Z religions teach hatred so all theists are haters.

If there was some kind of discrimination between RWRNJs and theists who are part of DU it would be ok-But it's always the broad brush.

[Skittles]

154. RECENTLY?

how about ALWAYS

[kwassa]

238. Not always.

I'm an Episcopalian. The head of the Episcopal church is a woman.

There are gay clergy everywhere, their spouses are included in their church communities. One of them was married at National Cathedral in DC, by the Bishop of Washington.

There are many churches and denominations open and welcoming to both gays and women in leadership roles.

[Skittles]

246. let me know when, say, the Catholic church approves of birth control

then we'll talk

[kwassa]

247. One church out of many, and most Catholics practice birth control.

A majority of Catholics voted for Obama, too.

[Skittles]

252. it's a sample of mass misogyny, world-wide, that for some reason we are supposed to RESPECT

it is causes MASS MISERY and is UTTER BULLSHIT

[kwassa]

256. OK.

I know you don't want to hear it, but the Catholic Church does many good things, too. Catholic Charities is the largest private charitable organization in the world, and there are no religious tests to get services. I worked for them, many years ago, as a non-Catholic, and know this to be true. They do many great social service programs, most invisible to the average citizen. Catholic Relief Services were working to help people in places like Darfur before the rest of the world knew about them. They go were many don't.

and many Catholics find great value in their religion despite disagreement about the roles of women and gays in the church. There is also a range of liberal and conservative churches.

[Skittles]

259. omg not the GOOD THINGS meme

they CAUSE a lot of the poverty they supposed "HELP" and don't even get me started on what they think of gay folk or how they shield pedophiles

ENOUGH ALREADY; I am done here - if you want to respect that stuff you go right ahead - just don't expect EVERYONE to respect it!!!

[kwassa]

311. How does the Catholic Church cause poverty?

This is one claim I've never heard before.

[beam me up scottie]

326. Its opposition to birth control.

Keeps women and children in perpetual poverty.

[kwassa]

335. OK. I accept that.

Good point.

At least most American Catholics ignore the official stance.

[Arugula Latte]

301. If you look at how the Catholic Church has behaved worldwide since its inception,

it is a history of rape, plunder, hate crimes against women and gays, repression of science, and many other atrocities. I would call it "a long Reign of Terror."

[kwassa]

313. Not exactly. There is a long line of crimes done in the name of the Church ....

but they have also been responsible for many advances in Western civilization

Catholic civilisation has made a remarkable contribution to the scientific investigation and mapping of the earth, producing great explorers such as Marco Polo (d 1324), Prince Henry the Navigator (d 1460), Bartolomeu Dias (d 1500), Christopher Columbus (d 1506) and Ferdinand Magellan
(d 1521). Far from believing that the world was flat (a black legend invented in the 19th century), the Catholic world produced the first modern scientific map: Diogo Ribeiro’s Padrón Real (1527). Fr Nicolas Steno (d 1686) was the founder of stratigraphy, the interpretation of rock strata which is one of the principles of geology.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (d 1829), a French Catholic, developed the first theory of evolution, including the notion of the transmutation of species and a genealogical tree. The Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel (d 1884, pictured) founded the science of genetics based on the meticulous study of the inherited characteristics of some 29,000 pea plants.

..............................................................................

Perhaps the greatest single contribution to education to emerge from Catholic civilisation was the development of the university system. Early Catholic universities include Bologna (1088); Paris (c 1150); Oxford (1167, pictured); Salerno (1173); Vicenza (1204); Cambridge (1209); Salamanca (1218-1219); Padua (1222); Naples (1224) and Vercelli (1228). By the middle of the 15th-century (more than 70 years before the Reformation), there were over 50 universities in Europe.

Many of these universities, such as Oxford, still show signs of their Catholic foundation, such as quadrangles modelled on monastic cloisters, gothic architecture and numerous chapels. Starting from the sixth-century Catholic Europe also developed what were later called grammar schools and, in the 15th century, produced the movable type printing press system, with incalculable benefits for education. Today, it has been estimated that Church schools educate more than 50 million students worldwide.

...................................................................................

The reforms of Pope Gregory VII (d 1085, pictured) gave impetus to forming the laws of the Church and states of Europe. The subsequent application of philosophy to law, together with the great works of monks like the 12th-century Gratian, produced the first complete, systematic bodies of law, in which all parts are viewed as interacting to form a whole. This revolution also led to the founding of law schools, starting in Bologna (1088), from which the legal profession emerged, and concepts such as “corporate personality”, the legal basis of a wide range of bodies today such as universities, corporations and trust funds. Legal principles such as “good faith”, reciprocity of rights, equality before the law, international law, trial by jury, habeas corpus and the obligation to prove an offence beyond a reasonable doubt are all fruits of Catholic civilisation and jurisprudence.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/2011/05/06/what-the-church-has-given-the-world/

[Prophet 451]

236. Have theists on DU been hostile to them?

Because the OP was talking about DU, not the wider world.

[truebrit71]

255. On a daily fucking basis...

... but let's not bring that up in case we hurt the religionista's fee-fees...

[LostOne4Ever]

100. It has been hostile to everyone (nt)

100!

[Jeffersons Ghost]

107. Yes; and according to the rules religious topics are not allowed to be posted in General Discussion.

[uppityperson]

148. Admin said it is right now, there is a Religion exception. eom

[Warren Stupidity]

113. Sure, a week in which some religious believers were slaughtering satirists for blasphemy

and other religious believers were off blaming the satirists was in general a really shitty week for proclaiming what a great benefit religion is for civilization.

This was kind of a learning lesson event for why religion in the modern world is a rock in our shoe.

[el_bryanto]

116. I've been meaning to say how much I like your avatar. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

118. The other cup is better.

[el_bryanto]

119. I'll just have to imagine it. At any you must be pretty happy with how things are going. nt.

[Warren Stupidity]

122. No, I was horrified by how things went.

Weren't you?

[el_bryanto]

126. I meant at DU - not in Paris. Naturally I was horrified with the various actions over there.

But you know that.

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

130. They were completely connected, and the events in Paris were far more important.

Sorry if yet another religiously inspired massacre (actually two, the undiscussed one in Nigeria was even more horrific) made it a tad uncomfortable for believers on DU.

[Skittles]

157. they always pull out the victim card

as if they have to trump the real victims

[trumad]

115. Do you tithe to your church?

I suspect you do because you are a Mormon.

If so... does your money go to causes that you disagree with at your church?

If so....how can you contribute money for things you disagree with?

[el_bryanto]

117. I do tithe, I don't believe my money goes to causes that I disagree with. nt

[PassingFair]

120. But it does.

http://www.advocate.com/news/2008/10/22/mormons-bankroll-anti%E2%80%93gay-marriage-amendments-california-arizona

[Warren Stupidity]

123. You might be making an assumption about "what is agreed with". nt.

[el_bryanto]

128. I support Marriage Equality - I've said so repeatedly

Do you have a link where I haven't? If not than why are you insulting me?

Bryant

[Humanist_Activist]

254. The fact that you tithe to your church shows that to be a lie, at the very least...

can you control where the money you donate goes?

If not, do you donate an equal or more amount to an LGBT friendly cause?

[Warren Stupidity]

288. You believe gays suffer in hell after death and you don't believe your church should allow same sex

marriage, or at least those were your stated beliefs the last time we had this discussion.

Have your beliefs changed?

[el_bryanto]

124. OK - you win. I knew that a lot of member out there had donated

but I didn't know it was directly encouraged by the leaders of the church - very discouraging.

Bryant

[PassingFair]

129. Enlightenment!

It does a mind good.

[el_bryanto]

131. Yes I'm so happy to be enlightened i think I'll go slit my wrists. nt

[PassingFair]

134. Maybe a visit to a mental health professional would be a better choice?

Not kidding here.

I hope you are not joking about killing yourself because you just found out that your
tithes are/were being used to campaign against equality.

[el_bryanto]

136. You hope i'm not joking?

What?

Really?

Bryant

[PassingFair]

142. Seek help. nt

[el_bryanto]

145. You really hope that I want to kill myself after finding out about this?

OK. I think instead I'll just take an extended break from DU.

Bryant

[PassingFair]

149. Saying this:

"I hope you are not joking about killing yourself because you just found out that your
tithes are/were being used to campaign against equality."

IS NOT the same thing as saying this:

"I hope you are not joking about killing yourself."

If you think it is, you need basic reading comprehension help AND counseling.

[uppityperson]

150. And he triples down with the death wish. Incredible.

[Bluenorthwest]

159. The point is that it would be disgusting and mean to joke about killing one's self about such a

thing. 'I hope you aren't joking about my mother's cooking, because if you are the Pope says I can punch you.' See how that works? Reading comprehension and a lack of imagined ill intentions in others can go a long way.

[PassingFair]

162. I wasn't joking.

He said he was going to slit his wrists.

[Aerows]

187. Yes, and it wasn't funny. n/t

[Aerows]

183. Suicide jokes

are about as funny as a live grenade tossed into a nursing home.

They just aren't funny, and DU isn't the place for them. I served on a jury that voted to hide that post, too, so neither of us are alone in thinking that was an awful thing to say.

[whathehell]

304. I think this is a question of being irony deficient.

Rather surprising coming from those non-believing self-styled iconoclasts.

[uppityperson]

151. just in case, here is the post.

Maybe a visit to a mental health professional would be a better choice?

Not kidding here.

I hope you are not joking about killing yourself because you just found out that your
tithes are/were being used to campaign against equality.

[whathehell]

302. Um, I think he's being ironic..

and I'm not kidding either.

[Aerows]

178. Jury results

And I *was* juror #4.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jan 17, 2015, 02:55 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Absolutely valid advice. If a poster suggest they will go slit their wrists, it is a good idea to encourage them to seek counseling. Suicide is not a laughing matter.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[Mariana]

194. Have you known anyone who committed suicide?

I have. I agree with the other poster - get help, before you hurt yourself and everyone around you.

If you weren't serious, I have to say that it's fucking sick that you think suicide is something to be joked about.

[Prophet 451]

240. Please don't joke about that

Take it from someone who has to fight down that urge every day (yes, I am getting treatment for it), it's not something to laugh about.

[Luminous Animal]

214. And the reason why I left the catholic church. I could not live with myself, in good

conscious, knowing what havoc my contributions contributed to.

[countryjake]

135. Has GD Been Hostile to the Victims of an Extremely Violent & Deadly Attack?

All is Forgiven

[Fearless]

160. It has certainly been hostile to Muslim DUers.

[Prophet 451]

241. There are Muslim DUers?

Given how hostile DU is to faith generally and Islam specifically, that surprises me.

[workinclasszero]

163. I notice quite a bit of hostility toward Christianity mostly

Which is sad considering what Christians like Dr King did in the past and also the great things the new pope has said about social justice and rich/poor issues lately.

I myself am pretty hostile to what gets called "Christianity" today. Hardly any major church follows the teachings of Christ anymore.

They are all money-making schemes it would seem. The almighty dollar is preached and worshiped and Ayn Rand is the gospel!

Republican/teabag/gun humping = salvation??

Capitalist/Randian Jesus is a Fox/republican construct that is killing off American Christianity and replacing it with 7 mountains Dominionism, AKA Joel’s Army AKA the New Apostolic Reformation.

"Christian fascism" IOW You do need to fear these heretics because they want to become the American ISIS.

[whathehell]

176. Oh, absolutely!

While most claim to hate all religion, in practice they are VERY selective about WHAT religion they mock and ridicule.

Judging by my seven years here, Judaism is off limits, as is Islam. In all the time I've

been here, I've not seen any ridicule of Judaism EVER. As for Islam, whoever even

attempts such a thing will likely be labeled as a "bigot" or "culturally insensitive"

if their post isn't simply hidden altogether.

There's a LOT of "selective outrage" and hypocrisy here.

[Prophet 451]

242. Republianity

a theology that, in Weird Al's words "I'll be laughing my head off, as you're burning in hell", a theology that essentially exists simply as a revenge fantasy that promises everyone the believer dislikes will burn, is a powerful political force and Republicanity is now the dominant Republican faith. Republianity is a mixture of lip service to Jesus (while jettisoning virtually everything he actually taught), Nieztchian will-to-power, Randian beliefs to justify psychotic anti-tax zealotry, Nazi-level nationalism and worship of the military and Rapture beliefs that were invented wholesale out of a few twisted-from-context Bible verses about a century ago. It has it's own high priests (Pat Robertson, Limbaugh, Beck), it's own messiah figure (Reagan), it's own devil figure (Obama although really, it's whoever the most high-profile liberal of the time is), it's own designated scapegoats (liberals) and it's own versions of history, economics, psychology, theology and jurisprudence. And a lot of your countrymen have been brainwashed to believe that fictional view of the world. They even have a museum and "university" to promote that faith.

[Bluenorthwest]

278. The thing is, hypocrisy. Here you are, after many posts about 'hostility to religion' but this post

of yours casually mocks religious figures and beliefs which you reject. How is it that YOU get to mock both beliefs and believers as a 'believer' while castigating others for doing the same? Just as Catholics 'believe' the Pope is more than a mere bigot, others 'believe' in Pat Robertson's preaching. To me they are exactly the same, anti gay rich idiots.
This thing of 'I get to mock religions and those who believe them but YOU must not' is the essence of religion. 'The rules are for thee, never for me'.
You are in this thread claiming victimization for a 'religious minority' which includes all religious things but not the ones you wish to mock.
So it's bad to criticize those who hate gays or burn churches, but fine to criticize Pat Robertson? Others who do the same as Pat have impunity?

It is not religion that bugs me. It's hypocrisy.

[ileus]

167. No different than normal....I'd say it's the "normal" amount of hate.

[SidDithers]

175. Are religious believers some sort of special class, that should be protected?...nt

Sid

[Warren Stupidity]

283. Yes. Obviously.

Normally we can't even discuss religion here, because delicate feelings get hurt.

[AuntPatsy]

177. I wasn't aware speaking truth would be considered hostile...

[840high]

185. What you consider truth - I might not.

[whathehell]

198. Perhaps you could start by distinguishing "opinion" from indisputable "truth".

[840high]

180. YES.

[GusBob]

197. Yes

[unrepentant progress]

204. Nope. It's pretty much the same as ever.

Lots of idiocy fueled by personal feelings and devoid of historical context, or fact for that matter.

[Douglas Carpenter]

205. Is the Pope Catholic? Does the bear shit in the forest?

[liberal_at_heart]

207. Yes, but that is nothing new. I think I'm going to start trashing those threads. They just

aren't worth my time. There are positive and negative things about religion, but the underlying issues are usually deeper than religion. Even without religion humans would still have the same problems such as greed, desire for power, and violence and I'm tired of people saying things would be so much better without religion. It's not only not true but in order to get rid of religion people would have to take the same kind of horrific actions that they say they want to get rid of.

[Prophet 451]

208. I think so

About three weeks ago, there was a thread about ISIS' sexual violence against the Yezidi and I posted "Jesus..." in teh subject line, with the candle-holding smiley as the body of teh message. Just that. Using "Jesus" as an exclamation and the smiley holding teh candle and someone thought it was important to respond to me saying that there was no Jesus.

(the below copied from another thread on similar lines)
I've been here for about thirteen years now. DU always had a contingent of atheists but that was fine, we didn't proselytize them and they didn't proselytize us. But in recent years, it all seems to boil down to "you're too dumb to see that we're right". They remind me of the sci-fi cliche (now thankfully, rather dated) of aliens who are told about religion and respond that they've outgrown such silly superstitions. It's all so shallow. The diversity and complexity of religious thought is ignored, substituted for the mindless pablum of literalism so they can dismiss faith as being about talking snakes and suchlike. There's no attempt to engage with or understand belief or believers, their fans are simply exhorted to go forth and sneeringly dismiss believers as just stupid. One can almost hear the strains of Onward Atheist Soldiers in the background.
In seeking to establish a place for atheism in the public psyche (laudable in itself), they seem to have adopted the worst excesses of theistic attitude (although, thankfully, not the worst excesses of theistic actions). They speak of believers in the same tone and often with the same words as Bryan Fischer speaks of atheists.

And when someone brings this up, the responses are predictable. I predict that if there are responses to this, them will be either A) childish reversals, "we're not x, you're x"; B) tiresome claims to not knowing who the "New Atheists" are; C) claims that the theists drive them to it ("she made me so angry&quot ; D) pointing out that many theists are jerks (which is true but missed the point) or E) simple flat denial and/or insults. Or they'll insist that, since you can't provide links (who saves links to annoying posts?), it never happened. Being insulted or our fa9ith being insulted is our own fault for holding the faith ("what do you expect, going out dressed like that?" or "love teh sinner, hate the sin&quot .

[AtheistCrusader]

375. lol

[herding cats]

224. I saw some things I thought were disrespectful

I've also seen personal disrespect taken where I thought a poster was disagreeing with the precepts of a specific religion and not all who practice the religion in their own fashion.

Religion and spirituality are some of those things which are so personal it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to discuss them like this-with faceless strangers-without offenses being given and taken by some on both sides of the issue. I've always disliked how this is, but I don't know how to make it not be so.

[valerief]

225. Has religion been hostile to EVERYONE in the 99% recently? Uh, yeah. That's what it does. nt

[kwassa]

239. No. Actually.

[kcr]

233. I answered yes because I just read a post claiming they're apologists for public beheading

I answered the poll as a non-believer. It's getting ridiculous around here.

[enki23]

244. I'm a nonbeliever, and the answer is "so what?"

It's also hostile to people who believe in mind control lasers. The main difference is that there are fewer of those. And there is such thing as lasers.

[LeftyMom]

250. No, but it's generally hostile to harmful or especially stupid beliefs, and it should be.

Some people have a hard time distinguishing between being hostile to bad ideas and hostility to the people who hold them. This is something they need to resolve, and not a reason to start respecting ideas that don't merit respect.

[Skittles]

253. if you support a church that is openly misogynistic and homophobic you are PART OF THE PROBLEM

[BainsBane]

251. You need an option that says:

It's been hostile, but believers deserve it because they are inferior. That about sums it up. From what I can tell, the main point seems to be for people to thump their chests about how superior they are to other DUers and the rest of the world. Guess what? They aren't, not even close. Evidently progressivism has become redefined as looking down on the everyone who isn't Western, bourgeois economically and culturally, and living in a nation that makes constant war on the inferior peoples of the world. But since they are superstitious barbarians, they deserve it. And they wonder why the world hates Americans. When this is how we act, what's to like?

But.. .but...but...we don't support the wars. We are liberals. People here expect others to distinguish the nuances of our culture where they make not even a minimal effort to do the same to those they look down on. I find the attitudes entirely imperialistic, which is of course what they are. They are the kind of views that are only possible on the part of people who live in a self-satisfied empire that prospers from the exploitation and war it wages around the world. Congratulations on y'alls superiority. It's been made possible through tremendous bloodshed and plunder. Americans deserve as much respect as we show the rest of the world.

[Prophet 451]

262. "It's been hostile, but believers deserve it because they are inferior"

That's pretty much what we've been told as believers. It's ok to attack our faith because our faith is stupid, delusional, unreal, mentally ill. Alert on those posts for insulting us and the jury tells us to suck it up. Religion has to carry the can for anything and everything a believer does but atheism isn't a belief system so it's perfect and shiny and clean and doesn't have to answer for anything. All the theists have to answer for the savages who murdered people in Paris but atheism isn't a belief system so no atheist has to answer for Stalin locking up believers. The playing field is tilted against us. When we're insulted for our faith, it's our own fault because we could always choose to not believe (leaving aside that none of us can choose to believe or disbelieve, a flaw in Pascal's Wager that even Pascal noted). We're told to just suck up the contempt and condescension.

I'm a man of faith and be honest with you, I'm starting to feel distinctly unwelcome here. If I log onto DU, I'm expected to either suffer through the insults and double standards or shut off what is a fairly big part of my life. Back before I was able to be honest about my sexuality (I'm bi), I had to sit there and suffer the homophobic jokes and insults made around me. That's roughly similar to how it feels to be a believer on DU. But of course, we could always choose not to believe so it's our own fault. Not sure if this place is worth it anymore.

EDIT: Sorry for the rant. This shit has me feeling a little raw and you got the brunt of it, sorry for that. I'm going to stop wasting time here and go finish my assignment now.

[BainsBane]

266. I can understand

and you responded to my own rant. I am not a religious person, but I despise intolerance of all sorts, including what you describe. There mere fact that I don't hate religion and its practitioners, it has been made clear to me, is unacceptable. The irony is they think they are so much more enlightened, when it's clear to me that is far from the case.

[Bluenorthwest]

282. So that's 'pretty much what you've been told'? Catholic teaching is that I am 'inherently disordered

and defective'. To be treated as inferior, our relationships to be mocked, discriminated against and made illegal.
So it's hard for me, as a gay person, to see that religions, which openly and directly attack LGBT people are the ones being treated as inferior. People here claim the Pope is really liberal, and he says I should not have equal rights because I am inherently disordered.
So. Hypocrisy. I'm asked to accept that the Pope is 'liberal' when he says I am defective, disordered and inferior in the eyes of God. Not 'pretty much says' but says, in print, in word and in deed.

So poor, poor put upon religion, not free to openly insult us without response, now wants laws to protect religion so it can continue to speak invective against us while we must never object to their political bullshit nor their hate speech.
But I see up thread that you, as a 'believer' in Satanism are allowed to mock Christian theologies you find silly and persons of faith that you find to be hypocritical. You do not think that I should have the same right, you 'believe' my rights to be inferior to your own. 'I can bash preachers, but if you do it it is wrong'.
Hypocrisy. Barf.

[whathehell]

307. Yes, a most fascistic point of view..

Kind of like that of the Nazis toward the disabled.

[Enthusiast]

260. I answered that I am a believer. But I have reservations.

I'm not a believer in anything mainstream religion would recognize.

Those people, the powerful organized organized religion hierarchy, given the chance, would sentence me to burning at the stake for heresy.

I believe in the Great Spirit. One time, for a moment, I recognized/remembered that I was part of that cosmic whole. I now understand that this religious hierarchy is man's creation and entirely unnecessary and counterproductive to spiritual growth.

[countryjake]

264. The Church of Preacher Casey...

"Well, maybe it's like Casey says. A fellow ain't got a soul of his own, just a little piece of a big soul, the one big soul that belongs to everybody, then..."

Ma Joad: Then what, Tom?

"Then it don't matter. I'll be all around in the dark...I'll be everywhere. Wherever you can look...whenever they’s a fight so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there. Whenever they’s a cop beatin’ up a guy, I’ll be there... I’ll be in the way guys yell when they’re mad an’ — I’ll be in the way kids laugh when they’re hungry an’ they know supper’s ready. An’ when our folks eat the stuff they raise an’ live in the houses they build — why, I’ll be there."

[Enthusiast]

267. countryjake, that is fine!

I loved that book. John Steinbeck. He was a fucking hippie. Where did he get the acid?

[ChosenUnWisely]

273. Nope, it is the other way around; those without religion are in the minority, impossible for

the minority to have any power. Unless it is the US Senate but that is another thread.

[Prophet 451]

274. No, they're not, not here

I ran a survey a few months ago and, assuming it's a reasonable cross-section, atheists outnumber any faction of believers here. And the OP isn't talking about the world in general but specifically about General Discussion on this site.

[ChosenUnWisely]

275. How many people were surveyed? How many people are members of DU?

Curious as to what the numbers were.

Not calling you a liar but when there are claims of data supporting a point , I like seeing the data.

[Prophet 451]

276. No problem

Before the thread was locked, there were 333 responses and 7 passes. The most populous faith position (atheism isn't a faith but it is a position on faith) was atheism with 144 responders, which more than doubled the next most populous, Christianity with 66 responders. Agnostics were 58 and no-one else makes it out of single figures except the catch-all Others which was 40. I have no idea how many members DU has although I'd note that sheer numbers matter much less than how many of those members are actively posting or viewing (what's called "footfall" in the web business).

Assuming that those responding were a fairly representative cross-section of DU (which I think is a reasonable assumption barring further evidence), atheists more than double Christians and there are more atheists than all the faith positions combined (atheists 144; everything except agnostics combined 131).

Linky: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025881467

Further, I'd question the assumption that a minority can't create a hostile atmosphere. I used to work for Beliefnet.com, the biggest religious site on the web. I learned while there that it only takes a small number of vocal posters to make a hostile atmosphere. For example, it only takes a few anti-semites to create an atmosphere hostile to Jews. Even if they never directly insult or threaten one of the Jewish posters, that small number of anti-semites, talking among themselves about how awful Jews and Judaism are, will very quickly make Jews feel unwelcome. One recurring problem we had was when a board intended to discuss a faith generally would become populated mostly by a particular faction of that faith, which would make those not in that faction feel unwelcome. Example: If I have a board for Christianity but the most vocal posters are all fundegelicals who share a common view of their faith and a common worldview informed by that interpretation of their faith, the non-fundegelicals will very quickly feel unwelcome.

[Yo_Mama]

285. Nice poll design - my answer yes, but I don't care.

It seems to me that people should be free to post their opinions on the matter as long as others are free to dissent. There's always the possibility that we might learn from each other, which is generally a good thing.

I am deeply religious, and my own perspective is that people who are, and who take their faith seriously (as to practice) generally don't care about the opinions of others as to the matter.

I would not want to live in a society that had rules as to what you can and cannot say about any particular religion or all of them, and I would prefer that DU not try to set up rules about this topic. Criticism is NOT hate speech, and a faith so weak that it can be dismayed by criticism is no kind of faith.

[Prophet 451]

289. I don't think anyone's saying it's hate speech

All that's being said is that the sheer amount of bashing is tiresome and makes some of us, as people of faith, feel unwelcome here. Criticism is one thing but when some atheists resort to "delusional", "mentally ill", comparisons with Santa/fairies, etc, that's not criticism. There's no attempt to engage with us or our beliefs as criticism would require, to understand us or where we're coming from, they're just reduced to the childish pablum of literalism to be ridiculed as stupid and dismissed.

I keep using this analogy: If I was in love, even if you hated my lover, you'd respect the strength of feeling involved. Some of the atheists here refuse to even grant our core beliefs that much respect. About a week ago, there was a thread about some horrible thing and I posted "Jesus..." as the subject line and the candle-holding smiley as the text. That's it, that's all. I used the word "Jesus" as an exclamation and posted a gesture of sympathy. Someone felt so strongly at just the mere mention of the word that they felt they had to respond to say there was no Jesus. In fact, we had a guy post in the religion group a couple of days ago simply to say that he respects us but has no respect for our faith. Nothing else, just that. He felt so strongly that he went to the religion group and created a thread just to say he didn't respect our faith. That's not criticism. That's just attacking believers because you feel superior to them.

I don't think any of us are asking for rules to be made or for anyone's speech to be censored. Some of us would just like to say that we're uncomfortable here because of the constant bashing of religion here (and it is constant, there's always far more anti-religion threads in the religion group than there are for the religious and usually several in GD) and some of us are starting to ask ourselves if it's worth the effort coming here when we have to either sit quietly and put up with the constant needling or turn off what is a fairly important part of our psyche.

[Yo_Mama]

294. Mostly fair points, I think.

Personally I think that a lot of this amounts to a fixation on the part of the individuals involved, and I just ignore (by passing them by, I don't put people on ignore) the majority of those threads or comments.

I have begun to rethink that slightly, because one thing that struck me during the French attacks was how deeply so many misunderstand Islam. They neither understand those who would resort to that type of attack nor the majority who wouldn't, and because they understand neither, they don't understand how society can confront this without resorting to extremes.

So perhaps letting these cartoonish stereotypes stand unchallenged is not the best tactic. That's why I responded to this poll.

But I don't have a lot of time, and I certainly can't waste what time I do have interacting with people who don't seem to be here to learn but rather to bash. I don't understand what's going on in their heads. Those types are few, however. It's those without faith but without the anti-faith monkey riding their backs that I think might want to hear from those with faith, because they may need understanding of it in the current climate.

As to the person who went to the religious forum and posted as you stated, I really don't find that offensive. The truth is that I don't respect that person's beliefs, or rather, the need to slam them in others' faces. But I do respect the person who holds those beliefs, so I think that was an attempt at outreach rather than attempt to insult or denigrate.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

372. Prophet, about your analogy to your lover,

the difference is that your lover, that I may or may not like, is a REAL PERSON that I can interact with and make a judgment about whether I would want to hang out with them or not. Or a judgment about whether they treat you right or not.

Whereas the concept of God is something I have seen no evidence for, in spite of being a former liberal Protestant. I have seen no evidence for the efficacy of prayer either. I've had good times in my life, I've had serious long-term illness, more than once, where I was not sure if I would die or not, I've been through several kinds of my own hell in my life. I lost my beloved sister, my best friend in the world, through cancer when I was 35 and she was 42. That was not god's will. That was just incurable cancer in spite of the best of care in the most renowned cancer hospital in the world. That death destroyed my parents and me for a decade. My parents did not live long enough to get past that personal cratering of our world because she was gone. I'm past it. It was over two decades ago, but I will never "get over" it. I will just keep going.

We all have our own battles to fight in our lives and we cannot know what other people have been through. People who act like they have a "personal relationship with Jesus" and that I should have one too, would think I am crazy if I said "I have no evidence that Jesus exists so I as far as I know, until he calls me on the phone or shows up in person in front of me, that I cannot have a personal relationship with Jesus."


People don't need religion to do good things and have morality. Christopher Hitchens asked the famous question, "Is there anything good a religious person can do that a non-religious person cannot do?" and he got no answer. You could do good and be motivated by your faith, or you could do good because it's the right thing to do according to your personal morality you fashioned for yourself.

The same could apply to the bad that some religious people do. Some people can be evil and horrible without any reference to god or "god told me to do this".

I think it starts with compassion for the suffering of other people and trying to cut them some slack for being mean or angry or whatever. To try to put yourself outside yourself and to imagine what it must be like for someone else's pain to be like. If you can't imagine what it is like, to at least have some empathy. And realize that when someone is mad at you for no reason, the problem is not within yourself, it's within them. Laura Huxley (Aldous' wife) wrote a book called "You Are Not the Target".


However, people who can't understand that I do not share their beliefs that their religion is the only true religion, or any other religion is the only true religion, and want me to be like them, are out of my life. I don't want to argue with them because I have no evidence that satisfies me personally. They have no evidence that satisfies me personally. I trust doctors and science, not faith.

[2banon]

310. I'm not a believer, & I really don't care if there's been "hostility" to Religious "believers" in GD

But I do believe that religious "believers" should should avoid evangelizing on GD.

They have safe harbor in their forum to discuss their pov on religious woo in a supportive environment. GD should be treated like the public square. keep your religious beliefs to yourself while there.

that's my opinion on the matter.

[rug]

314. And it's a pretty shitty opinion.

Are there any other ideas you want to ghettoize?

Do you think any discussion or - gasp - mention of religion or God is evangelizing?

Offhand I can think of half a dozen sites where you can have an echo chamber. In fact there's one here on DU where you can post your "opinion on the matter" without any fear of blemishing your eardrums with a single positive statement about religion.

[2banon]

382. Likewise..

Are there any other ideas you want to ghettoize?

Yeah, general discussion of say pornography might be another subject I'd like to see avoided in GD unless it's a news item or related to current events.

Do you think any discussion or - gasp - mention of religion or God is evangelizing?

Straw Man. Mentioning the word "God" in the context of current events (attributing to the current events being discussed) is quite different than headlining an OP with say, "What would Jesus Do?", which I've actually seen posted in GD related to socio-economic political matters.

But you already know that or should.

Offhand I can think of half a dozen sites where you can have an echo chamber. In fact there's one here on DU where you can post your "opinion on the matter" without any fear of blemishing your eardrums with a single positive statement about religion.

Exactly my point. Thanks for reiterating.

And it's a pretty shitty opinion.

Like wise, so is yours.

[Prophet 451]

317. Two things

Firstly, I've been here about thirteen years and I've never seen a believer evangelizing anywhere on DU. Seen quite a few atheists evangelize for atheism though.

Secondly, the religion group isn't a "safe harbor". There are always more threads bashing believers and their faith than there are for the faithful.

[hrmjustin]

319. Do you think atheist should avoid evangelizing in GD.

To be honest haven't seen any believers evangelizing on DU.

[2banon]

380. I've never seen atheists evangelizing anywhere, but maybe it happens in certain forums...

I never read or participate in? Trying hard to imagine Atheists evangelizing, but i suppose it's possible. But to answer your question, no I would say they too should avoid doing that in GD as well, in principle.

[hrmjustin]

381. I can't say I have seen believers evangelize in GD or DU.

[2banon]

383. Really? Well then, I guess the whole discussion is one big misunderstanding!

why the poll then?

[hrmjustin]

384. The point of the poll was to get people's opinion whether it has become hostile to people

of faith here on du. Nothing to do with evangelism.

[2banon]

385. Don't know about you, but I was just catching up on reading posts up thread..

I'm seeing enough to rest my case! I'm exiting here.. tossing the entire op in the trashcan.. see ya around somewhere else maybe..

[hrmjustin]

386. Thats a disappointing answer.

[HappyMe]

377. I have not noticed any "evangelizing" in GD.

That said, I don't think anybody should be evangelizing in GD - not even atheists.

[hrmjustin]

329. For the record it has gotten very hostile to believers.

To some extent it can't be helped because of the current events and people must be always free to express their opinion.

Having said that things have gotten hostile to believers and that is not believers fault. People need to remember that most of the believers here are progressive and for the same rights that secular people are for.

As a gay man I understand the homophobia and transphobia people have experiences in religious communities. I was told by a Cardinal of the RCC that I was going to burn in hell. I understand the hatred that can come with religion

Having said ghat people need to remember that DU believers are not your enemy.

[LeftyMom]

332. Your religion is hostile to women, racist and homophobic.

If ideas like that ever stop getting pushback on DU we have a real problem.

[On the Road]

336. What is Truly Ironic

is that DU in general has become such a caricature of its enemies. I can't think of a single anti-religious poster who understands Christianity any better than Fox News understands Islam. The combination of groupthink, propaganda, triumphalism, and aggressive ignorance is deafening whenever religion is anywhere within striking distance. At times like these, I am happy that DU has so little influence on the national party.

[Prophet 451]

337. I wish I could rec posts

It all seems to boil down to "you're too dumb to see that we're right". They remind me of the sci-fi cliche (now thankfully, rather dated) of aliens who are told about religion and respond that they've outgrown such silly superstitions. It's all so shallow. The diversity and complexity of religious thought is ignored, substituted for the mindless pablum of literalism so they can dismiss faith as being about talking snakes and suchlike. There's no attempt to engage with or understand belief or believers, they're are simply exhorted to go forth and sneeringly dismiss believers as just stupid. One can almost hear the strains of Onward Atheist Soldiers in the background.
In seeking to establish a place for atheism in the public psyche (laudable in itself), they seem to have adopted the worst excesses of theistic attitude (although, thankfully, not the worst excesses of theistic actions). They speak of believers in the same tone and often with the same words as Bryan Fischer speaks of atheists or Glenn Beck speaks of progressives.

[liberal_at_heart]

365. I would say there are certain Groups you can post in that are progressive, but as a whole I would

say that DU is not very progressive, and GD is definitely not progressive. There are some really nasty people on DU who seem to only exist to be mean to others, but you can't really escape that when on the internet. They are everywhere on the internet. I am glad DU has features such as trash thread and ignore list. I use them quite frequently and they make the stay here at DU much more pleasant.

[Mariana]

367. Understand Christianity?

There are tens of thousands of Christian denominations. Every one of them "understands Christianity" differently than the rest, and they all believe their "understanding" is the correct one and all the others are wrong. That doesn't even include the solitary Christians who don't hold with the interpretation of any particular church. All of them "understand Christianity" in their own individual ways as well.

Given this situation, I don't see how it's possible for anyone to claim to understand Christianity as a whole.

[Katashi_itto]

349. Throw them to the lions!!!

Don't really care who.

And as long as it's on pay per view.

[Number23]

351. 99 definitely yes vs 61 definitely not.

[Arugula Latte]

354. The truth is, religious people have been used to complete deference, until about ten years ago.

It's been the social norm that of course atheists/non-believers are to be shunned and derided because they are a hated minority. Of course being religious, particularly Christian, is the correct way to go through life in this country. Little did religious people realize how many millions of people secretly felt religion was nothing but made-up bullshit. The Internet has pulled back the curtain on this long-suppressed yet massively held opinion. Now many religious people are shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, that the "other" group has so many members and not everybody thinks beliefs based on mythology, ancient superstition, and control propaganda are to be granted automatic respect and deference.

Religious people are getting a tiny taste of what non-believers have gone through for eons. It's just comments on the Internet -- jeez, you'd think they were being put in stocks or burned at the stake.

[cemaphonic]

361. This is my take too.

Outside of the internet, and some of the liberal enclaves in large cities, being open about being an atheist will, at a minimum decrease your social and career prospects. Just about all of us regularly encounter believers that equate atheism with a sort of hedonistic sociopathy, since it doesn't have fear of divine retribution to hold us in check. Most of us keep quiet about it in our personal lives, because who needs that hassle, but that carries it's own price, especially in communities where the church is the heart of social life.

Internet anonymity has allowed atheists/agnostics/skeptics to speak out, and yeah, plenty of them are buttholes about it, but the snarky "invisible space wizard" talk is peanuts compared to the stuff that religious people say about atheists all the time. Even on the internet, if you check out some of the unmoderated forums where religion flamewars happen, atheists don't have a monopoly on being nasty and rude.

[Arugula Latte]

357. I'm wondering what the believers think about this type of hostility?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6102584

[hrmjustin]

358. i am against restricting reproductive rights.

[hrmjustin]

360. The reality it has been worse of late here.

That does nor mean that religious beliefs should not be challenged but it has not been very welcoming to religious believers this week.

I hope it gets better.

[mountain grammy]

364. I'm a non believer and I think there has been hostility here recently

towards religious believers, but I think there a reason. Religion is constantly in our faces. Everyone's praying for everyone for one thing or another. Even football players for some reason feel the need to kneel and pray in a crowded stadium. What the hell is that all about? Praying about football? If I was religious, I would think that blasphemy. I think bringing religion into every facet of everyday life is unnecessary and annoying and could be the reason for the hostility.

Everyone is entitled to their own personal faith. If people want to donate to the church of their choice, I don't care. I was once a church goer myself and donated every week. I tried hard to believe, but just couldn't find the faith, so I stopped being a hypocrite and bowed out. I'm fine with people of faith, just keep it to yourself and, as I like to tell people, if you feel the need to pray for me, please, pray for our president instead. He's a believer and I'm sure he would welcome it. You should hear some of the responses I get.

[Mariana]

368. Jesus had things to say about people

who make a point of praying in public, so everyone can see how pious they are. They weren't very nice things.

[thucythucy]

370. I think you make a very good point.

The public sanctimony gets really tedious after a while, and the fact is that conservative religious people--generally if not almost always Republican--have been pushing their reactionary brand of faith and trying their best to blur the line between church and state for decades now. It's obnoxious, dangerous even, and deserves pushback.

The problem though is that many folks here seem to be directing their frustration at the believers on DU, who tend to be socially progressive, pro LGBT rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, and pro-labor. It's like when somebody has a hard day on the job, and they come home and get all irritated with their spouse.

My impression too is we have a select few DUers who have taken it on as their personal mission in life to antagonize faithful DUers, maligning their sincerity and even their intelligence, and I think the OP is largely in response to that.

Just my humble opinion, as an agnostic, on what's been happening here.

[mountain grammy]

371. Thanks, and you make a good point also..

about the antagonizing of faithful DUers. I want people to respect my beliefs (or non beliefs) as I respect theirs and not let my frustrations with religious zealots cloud my honest desire to live and let live.

For the most part, I try to avoid threads about religion. I responded here because the anti religion threads have been on my mind. I'm pretty much anti religion, but try to keep my negative feelings to myself. Religion is pretty personal and who am I to question someone who finds faith?
When faith crosses into our secular world and interferes in the lives of people who don't share that faith, then I have plenty to say, and we're seeing far too much of that these days.

[Jamastiene]

376. If you are going to have the conviction to follow your beliefs, then

what other people think should not change your beliefs. People are going to disagree with you. There is nothing you can do about it. Hint: You are not being persecuted. People just disagree with you.

[Skidmore]

379. Why is it not enough to believe what you will and

Last edited Mon Jan 19, 2015, 11:55 AM - Edit history (1)

allow others their beliefs or disbelief? Why insist that others affirm or institutionalize a belief system as is being demanded by the most strident religions today? I draw the line at this point with believers of any creed and support a secular society. A believer has a right to belief but it ends where my rights begin.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0115-zuckerman-secular-parenting-20150115-story.html