Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Thats my opinion

(2,001 posts)
Sun Sep 2, 2012, 08:28 PM Sep 2012

A significant slice of American religion has always been and is now dedicate to peace

Foremost are historic "peace churches" such as The Church of the Brethren, Quakers and Mennonites.

In addition, the ecumenical councils that represent the broad scope of main-line Christianity, have been deeply involved in the anti-war movement. Over the years, any significant peace protest has seen deeply embedded in it a preponderance of those there for religious reasons, joining those of non-religious persuasions as colleagues in the effort.

At the opening of our Democratic Campaign headquarters this afternoon, almost one half of the crowd were probably in some church this morning.

Every Friday afternoon since the beginning of the Afghanistan war, a score of religiously motivated people have stood with protest signs at a major intersection near us.

Many denominations have long-since issued statements against war and have backed up these statements with action. Here is one from a major denomination issued in 1936.


"We believe war to be morally and ethically wrong and a direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ. We therefore disassociate ourselves from the war system and serve notice upon all whom it may concern that we will not support future wars not will we as a religious body permit our co-operative agencies to be used either directly or indirectly for such purpose."
-1936 Disciples of Christ International Convention held in Kansas City-

To call for the prohibition of religion in public life--in this case war and violence--would be to seriously injure the peace movement and violate the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment.

38 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A significant slice of American religion has always been and is now dedicate to peace (Original Post) Thats my opinion Sep 2012 OP
LOL Skittles Sep 2012 #1
Neither are all atheists, Democrats or people with red hair Thats my opinion Sep 2012 #2
be thankful??? Skittles Sep 2012 #6
and a significant number are not. /nt still_one Sep 2012 #3
A significant slice of American religion has always been and is now dedicated to war EvolveOrConvolve Sep 2012 #4
but we need to be THANKFUL for those who are for PEACE!!! Skittles Sep 2012 #7
"The Church of the Brethren, Quakers and Mennonites." Goblinmonger Sep 2012 #5
That's certainly the church I grew up in. cbayer Sep 2012 #8
"Significant slice"... rrneck Sep 2012 #9
^^^THIS^^^ cleanhippie Sep 2012 #11
You could probably fit every member Goblinmonger Sep 2012 #12
While you are as wrong in your statistics as was Ryan he other night, Thats my opinion Sep 2012 #17
Well, if you take the brown-haired people skepticscott Sep 2012 #19
But Charles, you aren't merely asking us to... trotsky Sep 2012 #20
Richard Nixon was a Quaker. cleanhippie Sep 2012 #10
What a mean, nasty got'cha question. Goblinmonger Sep 2012 #13
I know, right? One would think to know better than to ask what the point was. cleanhippie Sep 2012 #14
Also Quaker - Atty. Gen. A. Mitchell Palmer of "Red Raids" fame onager Sep 2012 #25
"To call for the prohibition of religion in public life" - No one is doing that, Charles. cleanhippie Sep 2012 #15
Absolutely spot-on. n/t Adsos Letter Sep 2012 #16
I'm convinced at this point that no, he does not see the difference. trotsky Sep 2012 #18
You can also be sure skepticscott Sep 2012 #21
+1 mr blur Sep 2012 #22
+2 n/t trotsky Sep 2012 #23
And, as predicted skepticscott Sep 2012 #27
A significant slice of world religion has always been and is now dedicated to war mr blur Sep 2012 #24
Minor pedantic point... onager Sep 2012 #26
You're right, it was. Which of course underlines my point. mr blur Sep 2012 #28
Well, with a population that large, I guess 5% to 10% is indeed significant. 2ndAmForComputers Sep 2012 #29
'To call for the prohibition of religion in public life' Angry Dragon Sep 2012 #30
What kind of "honest explanation" are you looking for from the various religions? cbayer Sep 2012 #31
I just read in another thread where they said that the immaculate conception and the virgin birth Angry Dragon Sep 2012 #32
Christians are not going to come to consensus about what a christian is because cbayer Sep 2012 #33
Then I can only see to get rid of the term 'Christian' Angry Dragon Sep 2012 #34
That's just not going to happen and the religious already speak for themselves. cbayer Sep 2012 #35
I'd like to focus on one of your sentences. trotsky Sep 2012 #36
Come on, Trotsky, there are rules for us, and then there are rules do them. cleanhippie Sep 2012 #37
It's worth pointing out to observers, I think. trotsky Sep 2012 #38

EvolveOrConvolve

(6,452 posts)
4. A significant slice of American religion has always been and is now dedicated to war
Sun Sep 2, 2012, 08:51 PM
Sep 2012

Peace is possible with or without religion. But it's impossible with the fundies that now control the religious narrative in the U.S. They WANT Armageddon. They WANT the rapture. They WANT the fulfillment of prophecy, even it's self fulfilling.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
5. "The Church of the Brethren, Quakers and Mennonites."
Sun Sep 2, 2012, 09:34 PM
Sep 2012

Well, that's a force to be reckoned with. I mean, compared to the numbers of the religious right, you go a lot of power there.

for the impaired.

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
9. "Significant slice"...
Sun Sep 2, 2012, 10:50 PM
Sep 2012


That's a megachurch. There are hundreds, possibly thousands of them in this country, and they are devoted to war and profit. Not a few of our elected officials are syncophants to their ughy ideology. They have billions of dollars in assets. What have you got? What guarantee can you offer your ideology won't morph into the same sort of beast if it gains power?

We have been struggling against the backward drag of religious power for five hundred years. Yours is a hopelessly regressive vision of cultural development.
 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
12. You could probably fit every member
Sun Sep 2, 2012, 11:10 PM
Sep 2012

of the three sects he mention in the OP in that church. And if not in that church, probably in less than a handful of those type of churches.

Talking about ignoring the gorilla in the room.

Thats my opinion

(2,001 posts)
17. While you are as wrong in your statistics as was Ryan he other night,
Mon Sep 3, 2012, 01:16 AM
Sep 2012

what I described is the powerful minority of religionists who have been the backbone of every movement for social good in recent American history--peace, civil rights, environmentalism, women' issues, labor rights, on and on. Take these people out of everyone of these movements and you would have gutted them. The vast majority in the mega churches are pathetic, but that is not what I was talking about--even if they seem to be your fascination.

Why not support and celebrate the minority that stays in the front lines of social good?

As for the others-- Jesus, who had only a few said,"let the dead bury the dead."

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
19. Well, if you take the brown-haired people
Mon Sep 3, 2012, 08:17 AM
Sep 2012

out of those movements, you'd gut them too. So what exactly is your point?

You continue to promote the lie that because people who happened to be religious were in these movements, that their religious faith was their primary motivation, and that religion deserves the credit for any good result. This while denying vehemently that the results of any bad movement inhabited by religious people should be laid at religion's door.

Anyone familiar with American history knows perfectly well that religious faith has not been the primary, or even an important motivator behind the women's rights, labor rights and environmental movements, and that religious people stumped FOR war and against civil rights at least as hard as the opposite.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
20. But Charles, you aren't merely asking us to...
Mon Sep 3, 2012, 08:21 AM
Sep 2012

"support and celebrate the minority that stays in the front lines of social good." I guarantee you every atheist in this group, and on DU overall, supports the efforts of religious liberals to promote the progressive agenda.

Instead, what you demand is respect for religion in general, and for liberal religion in particular, as a basis for public policy. As you've stated and defended quite clearly in the past, you don't believe anyone would want to live in a society without a religious basis for ethics. You've tried to insist that ONLY religious belief could have brought progress on social issues, blatantly disregarding non-believing Americans, their role in those movements, and the 700 pound gorilla in the room - the fact that those movements wouldn't have been needed if it wasn't for religion being used to justify oppression in the first place.

You've torpedoed any credibility you've ever thought you've had.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
10. Richard Nixon was a Quaker.
Sun Sep 2, 2012, 10:59 PM
Sep 2012

Didn't seem to stop him from bombing the shit out of the North Vietnamese.

What was your point, anyway?

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
14. I know, right? One would think to know better than to ask what the point was.
Sun Sep 2, 2012, 11:15 PM
Sep 2012

I mean, god forbid that Charles actually make a clear and coherent point.

Perhaps only "legitimate" questions get answers?

onager

(9,356 posts)
25. Also Quaker - Atty. Gen. A. Mitchell Palmer of "Red Raids" fame
Tue Sep 4, 2012, 01:08 AM
Sep 2012

Palmer called himself "the Fighting Quaker."

After he started arresting and deporting people en masse for their political opinions, H.L. Mencken changed that nickname for him. To "the Quaking Fighter."

To help him with the Red Raids, Palmer chose a hustling young bureaucrat named J. Edgar Hoover.

Another famous Quaker who really deserved the name "fighting" - Maj. Gen. Smedley D. Butler, USMC. Still the only officer in Marine Corps history to win the Congressional Medal of Honor twice. According to his autobiography, Butler's family used Quaker "plain speaking" at home (thee, thou, etc.)

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
15. "To call for the prohibition of religion in public life" - No one is doing that, Charles.
Sun Sep 2, 2012, 11:22 PM
Sep 2012

What people are calling for is for public officials to stop using their religion as the reasoning for policy they are charged with creating/administrating.

Do you see the difference?

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
18. I'm convinced at this point that no, he does not see the difference.
Mon Sep 3, 2012, 08:07 AM
Sep 2012

And quite disgracefully, refuses to listen to anyone who tries to point it out to him.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
21. You can also be sure
Mon Sep 3, 2012, 09:02 AM
Sep 2012

that our OPer will vanish from this discussion, having been brought up short (again) by the fact that anyone would dare to question what he's declared as unshakeable truth, and having no substantive answers for anyone pointing out the gaping flaws in his arguments. Like so many other religionists here, his claim to want useful, productive, meaningful discussion is simply bogus.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
27. And, as predicted
Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:28 PM
Sep 2012

he pontificates, and then disappears, refusing to discuss the huge flaws in his argument with anyone who doesn't bow and scrape.

 

mr blur

(7,753 posts)
24. A significant slice of world religion has always been and is now dedicated to war
Mon Sep 3, 2012, 07:28 PM
Sep 2012

For example, there were many religious people in the National Socialist German Workers' Party dedicated to fighting the atheist forces of communism (among others). Their leader was a god-fearing Christian. Even the SS wore belt buckles inscribed "Gott mit uns" (God is with us).

To call for the prohibition of religion in public life would be to seriously injure the war movement .

Why do you hate America?

(and no, I'm not equating Christians with Nazis; my statement above, however, is no more ludicrous than yours in the OP.)

onager

(9,356 posts)
26. Minor pedantic point...
Tue Sep 4, 2012, 01:28 AM
Sep 2012

I'm surprised one of our Google-fuehrers hasn't hammered you on it yet.

"Gott mit uns" was inscribed on belt buckles of the regular German Army (or Wehrmacht-Heer, for the uber-pedantic.) Not the SS.

The official motto of the SS, inscribed on their buckles/daggers, was "Meine Ehre heißt Treue" (My Honor is Loyalty). Which is pretty ironic, considering their leader Heinrich Himmler ended the war frantically trying to do a deal with the Allies behind Hitler's back.

Interesting note from the Wikipedia article on the SS: Members of the SS could be of any religion but atheists were not allowed.

They apparently lived up to that as Germany started recruiting more foreign SS troops. For example, the 13th Waffen-SS Mountain Division "Handschar." They were mostly Bosnian Muslims with a few Catholic Croats.

Their headgear was a stylish fez decorated with the SS death's-head symbol. In the picture below, they are studying a pamphlet entitled "Islam and Judaism:"





 

mr blur

(7,753 posts)
28. You're right, it was. Which of course underlines my point.
Tue Sep 4, 2012, 02:57 PM
Sep 2012

But perhaps they weren't "True" Christians.

Angry Dragon

(36,693 posts)
30. 'To call for the prohibition of religion in public life'
Tue Sep 4, 2012, 07:28 PM
Sep 2012

Just who is calling for the prohibition of religion in public life??
I just do not see that
If any thing people are saying 'do not make me believe what you believe'

When all Christians can come to an honest explaination of their religion then get back to me
And that goes for all religions


Angry Dragon

(36,693 posts)
32. I just read in another thread where they said that the immaculate conception and the virgin birth
Tue Sep 4, 2012, 08:13 PM
Sep 2012

was a minor point however many pray to the Virgin Mary because of these points.

Let's have the Christians come to a consensus of what it means to be a Christian and decide what needs to be believed to be a Christian

I see a lot of hate coming from a lot of Christians and when I studied religion that was not part of it.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
33. Christians are not going to come to consensus about what a christian is because
Tue Sep 4, 2012, 08:21 PM
Sep 2012

there are different flavors of christianity.

Clearly there are groups that use their religion to spread hate and bigotry, while there are others that do the exact opposite.

There are those that read the bible literally and those that see it as a book of stories that are open to interpretation.

It's not a monolithic group with a strict creed.

Why would that be important anyway?

Angry Dragon

(36,693 posts)
34. Then I can only see to get rid of the term 'Christian'
Tue Sep 4, 2012, 08:25 PM
Sep 2012

because it really means nothing and let the religions speak for themselves
because 'Christianity' is not really a religion

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
35. That's just not going to happen and the religious already speak for themselves.
Tue Sep 4, 2012, 08:32 PM
Sep 2012

It is you that wants it simplified for reasons I am still not understanding.

You could, alternatively, take the time to just talk to or read various people that hold different opinions.

The only thing I think one can say about Christians is that they follow the teachings of Jesus to some extent or another. Very similar to saying that the only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in gods. Just like there are many kinds of christians, there are many kinds of atheists as well.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
36. I'd like to focus on one of your sentences.
Tue Sep 4, 2012, 09:14 PM
Sep 2012
You could, alternatively, take the time to just talk to or read various people that hold different opinions.

Your father has been challenged on one particular crucial point he made in his OP, namely that some are "call(ing) for the prohibition of religion in public life." MULTIPLE people have challenged him to support that statement. They hold a very different opinion than him, and they don't see anyone "call(ing) for the prohibition of religion in public life." Your father is ignoring them, refusing to respond and defend his inflammatory and accusatory statement.

I suggest that you take the sentence of yours that I quoted, and show it to your father. He needs to engage the people who are disagreeing with him and his portrayal of their positions, learn from them, and stop repeating his nonsense claims.

It would be the civil thing to do, and go a long way toward encouraging discussion and learning in this group.

Or you (and he) can just ignore me. Whatever.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
37. Come on, Trotsky, there are rules for us, and then there are rules do them.
Tue Sep 4, 2012, 10:06 PM
Sep 2012

You know this. Why bang your head against the wall?

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
38. It's worth pointing out to observers, I think.
Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:21 PM
Sep 2012

I sadly realize there is little point trying to improve the behavior of others, having given up for good on one of the worst offenders just recently.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»A significant slice of Am...