This sets a great example for liberals everywhere...

who still associate and identify with religions with such official positions.

If Jimmy Carter can do it after six decades, anyone can. He decided to stop being intellectually dishonest with himself and ceased his cognitive dissonance, and he'll be happier for it. And, there are plenty of progressive religions out there for him to join if he so chooses.

It used to be "normal" to oppose gay marriage and even assoicate with virulent homophobic institutions just a decade ago. Heck, the KKK was quite a respected establishment back in the day. But tradition and social functions cannot be excuses for prolonging these bigoted ideologies by identifying and supporting them, however indirectly. As soon as people demand the religions/groups they associate with (think Boy Scouts of America for a recent example) to stop holding such bigoted beliefs by withholding support or walking out and joining progressive organizations, things change in a hurry.

Good job President Carter.

There is a difference between education...

and indoctrination. If your tradition involves indoctrination, then it is abusive. Indoctrinating a child in your progressive values is abuse. (In other words, telling them that progressive values are the objective truth, not a preference, and that indeed, if you don't follow them, eternal punishment awaits you, just as a fairly common example of forms of indoctrination that are accepted).

I can fully educate my children in progressive values. I can tell them what values I hold, and why I prefer these values, and none of that is indoctrination. If I never expose them to any other sort of ideas or even go out of my way to shut out other ideas, it's manipulation of a sort and unseemly, to say the least.

Children have the right to not be manipulated and indoctrinated, by their parents or anyone else. It is wrong for parents to indoctrinate their children in any way.

Most people recognize this, but there is a giant exception for religious indoctrination.

Yes...

anyone who argues in with such depricating terms or in incredibly rude manners only hurts their own position, I agree with you there. But that's not anti-religiosity, that's just people being rude, an unfortunate human failing that happens in all discussion boards. It seems the jury system has been able to hide those that are just being rude or engaging in personal ad hom attacks from those that make relevant, legitimate points that some may find rude because they disagree with it.

I understand where you are coming from...

but it's still a choice.

I'm not too harsh on those who "choose" to when they live in places like Iran, and I am sympathetic that in almost every case, I am talking to victims of childhood indoctrination, many of whom don't even consider that they were indoctrinated or understand how that is abuse. I came from the same place that they did, and for many years willingly engaged in cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty, ironically lashing out against those that were trying to break me of that childhood indoctrination, but that is unfortunately how the world goes.

Why?

Indoctrination of children is a form of child abuse. If the Sunday School involves indoctrination (and most do), yes, it's a form of child abuse.

When is indoctrination, of children or adults, ever OK? When is it not an abuse in some way? And for children, who are especially defenseless to it?

This is not an excuse...

most atheists were indoctrinated from birth and some had a difficult time making the choice to come out.

It's always a choice. The fact that organized religion relies almost entirely on childhood indoctrination, fear, guilt, and a number of other despicable tools to keep believers "in the fold" is not reason to excuse those who continue to choose religion based on those terrible reasons, but a reason to calmly point out the inherent cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty required of almost every one of organized religion's adherents.

If a person believes that is who they are "culturally" or "ethnically", no one can ever take that from them, they'll self-identify as they want to regardless of their beliefs vis-a-vis the belief system. Why a person would want to identify with an abusive indoctrination system is the really sad part. It's because the same abusive indoctrination system provided community and support as well, so it leaves people conflicted emotionally about the institution, similar to an abusive parent.

However, this is one "abusive parent" you can get away from as an adult and recognize for what it is. And once you do, no one wants to identify themselves with it. They won't deny the role, good and bad, it played in their lives, but they've moved on.

You being irritated by "anti-religiosity" on DU...

is a symptom of the continuing power and privilege religion enjoys. There is nothing bigoted or wrong about being against certain philosophies or forms of thinking, much less saying what your opinions or preferences on such modes of thinking are on a discussion board, but the fact that this "irritates" you is because religion still has a lot of power and privilege. I'm glad you are of the opinion that religion is a choice that shouldn't be the basis for oppressing others, and for that I thank you.

But the pass religion gets is simply a reflection of the power it has. The owner of a progressive site congratulating religious people for the appointment of a new religious leader, a leader that very specifically calls out others on that same board as second-class citizens or worse, makes the point crystal clear that religion still has an incredible amount of power and privilege, even here, that we atheists get tired hearing about the laments of the religious about criticism of religion. When the feelings of the religious, which is a choice, comes before the rights of others, well, we've seen that power dynamic plenty of times throughout history.

I could post something about why I prefer free markets here on DU, and it would get shredded, yet, I wouldn't be "irritated", I'd kinda expect it on a progressive site like this, and people disagreeing with me is par for the course on discussion boards.

Someone needs to tell Scalia that... nt

The "religious left" isn't actually that religious...

which is why it acts differently from the religious right. From what I've seen, progressive religions are filled with types that have few specific beliefs beyond some comforting ideas about the afterlife. They're much more flexible and malleable, and much less consistent (thankfully) than the religious right. The people in it, for all intents and purposes, act like and think like atheists/agnostics in most ways, and quite a few of them probably are.

That, combined with the fact that liberals in this country never undertook to woo religion as a political strategy like conservatives did, and the conservatives are reaping what they sowed now.

Pathetic and disgusting...

are the words to describe the Catholic Church in their official positions of bigotry that they actively spread.

Apologists of this bigoted religion are engaging in disgusting and pathetic cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty.

And they are calling relevant criticism "bigotry". Reminds me of KKK members saying that the real racists are black people.

When a person holds the official position that women are inferior and gay marriage is an act of the devil, it doesn't matter what good he does in the name of those offical positions.

Everyone realizes this with secular institutions, but many religious people still feel privileged and entitled to special protection from criticism. Not anymore. Fuck that.