There ought to be limits to religion

[Cronus Protagonist]

If Bush can claim there ought to be limits to freedom, and many of his supporters agree (including the Supreme Clowns), then I think it's time we looked into more effective limits to religion.

So let's figure out fair limits to ensure that religious people don't encroach on other people's lives.

Here's a few limits that I think might have beneficial effects:

1/ Religions should be limited such that no one religion (including all secterain versions of one religion) may have members totalling to no more than 20% of the population in any city, town or village.

2/ Religions should pay a fair tax on the return of their investments in financial insturments. The donations of the congregation should not be taxed, but the portion of the money that is invested in real estate or any other financial instrument that increases in value, will require taxe payments on these profits.

3/ Religions should be limited to speaking verbally from the pulpit. They would not be allowed to print any publications other than their sacred texts and other items purley for the express purpose of discussing their sacred texts among themselves.

4/ Religions should not be allowed to canvass any area of any town, city of village and should be excluded from knocking on anyone's door if the householder did not specifically request a visit.

5/ No religious officials holding any paid positions (including those that incur no cash payment, but return payment in goods and services such as lodgings, meals, etc.) may participate in any activity related to, or part and parcel, of the election process.

6/ Religions may not host voting booths or promulgate any communications regarding politics or any elections other than for electing people to positions inside their own religion.

7/ Religions leaders would be prohibited from promoting, censuring, mentioning or alluding to any candidates, politicians, measures, propositions, parties or government entities.

Well, that would be a good start. Would anyone like to add some more?

[jus_the_facts]

1. Jefferson quote concerning religion...

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823


.....history proves there's not much reason to have hope that anything will ever change...same shit different century. :nopity:

[ladjf]

15. If Jefferson and Franklin were living in our times, they wouldn't

be allowed to teach in most of the bible belt state public schools due to their liberal philosophical positions.

[Cronus Protagonist]

20. No doubt. (eom)

Lick Laura's Bush - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[amber dog democrat]

2. Don't forget Televangelism

Radio and TV broadcasts are a concern as well.

[mopaul]

3. televangelists have TOO much power & not enough controls

selling something for nothing. besides prostitution, playing a shaman or wizard is the oldest profession.

[amber dog democrat]

7. I would take a prostitute any day

over a televangelist.

That used to be a sacred institution - until the Christians got established.

[pss]

9. selling something for nothing???

No, no, no, my friend. You've got that backwards.
They're selling nothing for something!!

[amber dog democrat]

10. Kind of like being spiritual spamers

and about as useful.

[mopaul]

12. exactly

in my wacky opinion anyway. nothing for something is right

[amber dog democrat]

17. i call it " Angel Food Cake "

This means the myths that people are told in church.
Something that really got me was this trend in some churches to refer to funeral services as "victories", and have precious little reference to anything germaine to the person whose service you are attending. It always leaves me wondering where the truth lies.

[Warpy]

8. Oh, I think we can take care of those

if we tax any and all commercial ventures. The church building itself should be exempt. Attached buildings such as schools should be taxed, as should any and all recording studios, printing facilites, or any income property the church owns (and they own plenty, bequeathed to them by late members). Taxing this stuff would open those now closed "donation" records, and make them much less lucrative for the religious scammers now running them. They'd wither and die, eventually, especially when the donors realize they've been doing without essentials to keep people like Falwell and Robertson living like sultans.

The only quibbles I have are with the publication part (let 'em print anything but political tracts) and the percentage of any township as membership. The former is an undue burden on Sunday School and babble study classes (and they're not all bad), and the latter would be unenforceable.

[noonwitch]

19. My church keeps open books

They print a monthly financial statement of all donations, expenses, etc., and enclose it with the Sunday program. They didn't used to do this, but we had some problems with the last head pastor and the board wants there to be no question of integrety.

We don't have a school, but we do have a coffee shop and bookstore. I pay sales tax on anything I buy in either, but the bookstore has gotten the church through some pretty hard times. The store fills an important role in the community and has a spiritual and self-help book selection that's hard to top. Both contribute to giving people who are in recovery from substance abuse a safe place to hang out, as my church also provides free space to several 12 step groups.

I'd like to see a crackdown on televangelists, but not on churches. Most Protestant churches are responsible on an individual basis for their finances, and when things go wrong, the churches get rid of the problem internally. I don't think the government should be intervening in church matters unless there is obvious criminal activity.

Televangelists, however, answer to the FCC and should be monitored. There needs to be a rule about their shows' content. If over 25% or so of the show is about fundraising or politics, they should not receive a tax exemption.

[ladjf]

16. I listened to 1 hr of bible study on TV this morning.

Those guys should be ashamed of themselves for the damage that are causing to unsuspecting victims. A solid hour of total bull sh..

I think people need to realize that religious activity is not some innocuous, benign "child's play" voodoo stuff. It's seriously dangerous activity that is threatening draw the entire planet into it's loony vision of the apocalyptic annihilation of the human race.
Folks, those crazy bastards are on the verge of making their doomsday dreams come true, at our expense.

[alittlelark]

74. My mom is one of them, and you are unfortulately

right on target. She has her 'bags' packed and is awaiting the rapture...which * will usher in according to her latest wacko preacher.


very, sad, but VERY, VERY SCARY.

There are MANY who identify themselves as the Army of the Lord.

[Cronus Protagonist]

21. I don''t think that's a problem as long as they pay for air time

...and adhere to my list of limits above.

[daveskilt]

4. well maybe on some

I agree totally on 2, 5, 6, and 7

on 1, 3 and 4 I am more on the first ammendment rights side of the fence.

one you missed out though that might cover your intent on some of those three -
Any church engaging in political activities (jerry falwel to the rev jesse jackson) should loose their tax exempt status and be treated like any other PAC.

on edit: I am all for anyone saying whatever the hell they want - but there needs to be transparency in their identity and motivation.

[bryant69]

5. I mean if we are going to throw out the 1st Ammendment

Wouldn't just banning religion be easier? I mean, why not get at the root of the problem, instead of these round about regulations?

Particularly since these regulations would create a climate so onerous to religion, that it would be tantemount to destroying it anyway.

If Religion is such a rabid dog and needs to be destroyed, why not just put it down, rather than trying to suffocate it?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Cronus Protagonist]

22. I didn't propose throwing out the first amendment

However, the courts have agreed to limits of free speech where such speech impacts the public. I think this is similar, and perhaps even worse, because the churches are effectively using the communities resources for free and only serving a chosen few.

Lick Laura's Bush - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[telamachus]

32. I guess you

don't have churches in your community that help the poor or do good. The service done by the church to the community is saving the taxe payers millions of dollars in service to those in need that the government has not been able to help. Don't be so silly.

Not all churches are doing a service to others but I would bet that the vast majority do. In fact I would wager with you that I am correct. Name your bet.

[Cronus Protagonist]

37. No churches serve me, but they love my tax money

Your mileage may vary, although I suspect you're already a beneficiary and therefore have something to lose.

Lick Laura's Bush - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Djinn]

63. religious people who help the poor etc would still help anyway

unless of course they don't do it because they want to help but because they are scared of being punished by God?

I wouldn't actually mind wagering that without the religious involvement more people might donate time/money to various causes, I know through my own experiences with charities that many people are reluctant because they don't want their money diverted to proselytising.

Church's finances should be treated the way other charities are but ONLY for those sections that ARE charities, real estate and other investments aren't.

6. I really hope this is a joke

Sounds like you're trying to replace one kind of religion with your own religion, unless this is a joke post.

[Cronus Protagonist]

23. No joke, and what's my new religion?

Since you seem to see a new religion there somehow, what is it called, what are its tenets and what is its God?

Lick Laura's Bush - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Blue Wally]

11. And?????

"5/ No religious officials holding any paid positions (including those that incur no cash payment, but return payment in goods and services such as lodgings, meals, etc.) may participate in any activity related to, or part and parcel, of the election process."

Rev Martin Luther King
Rev Jesse Jackson
Rev Al Sharpton

Are these the preachers you wish to silence??

[Cronus Protagonist]

27. Not if they give up tax-exempt status

And pay taxes on their huge salaries.

P.S. Martin Luther King is dead so this won't apply

Lick Laura's Bush - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Warren DeMontague]

13. I'd like for them to stop yammering about my naughty bits, please.

That would be nice.

[Cronus Protagonist]

30. Well, I'd like that too but I wouldn't care if they limit it

...to inside the churches via spoken word only and could not engage in political actions about it.

Lick Laura's Bush - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[ladjf]

14. Churches should be required to post warnings on their

entrances stating that Religious activity may be harmful to your health and may also result in serious political side effects for the entire Country.

[Zynx]

18. This is a joke, right?

[telamachus]

24. no joke ..just anti religion bigots.

why the mods allow these threads is beyond me

[Cronus Protagonist]

33. I beg to differ - religions attract bigots

And take our tax money to spread the hate around.

Lick Laura's Bush - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[Cronus Protagonist]

40. I didn't make that claim, but since you ask...

First of all I said, and I quote - "religions tend to attract bigots", not, as you claim, "all religion attracts bigots". You should know the difference.

On your second point, they use community services like fire, road, police, power, gas, sewer, water, etc. just like the rest of us and they do not pay for it. They are recipients of the things that our tax money buys, and then many of them turn around and attack the very people who paid for all that.

This is why it's got to stop, and why I propose some simple remedies for this inequity.

Your second question, the patronizing, snotty one, would dignify it, so I'll leave that one alone.

And your last comment, as a personal attack, violates the DU rules, so I've alerted the mods on it. Your post shouldn't last long. Do try to be a little more honest and stick to the issues in future. Thanks.

Lick Laura's Bush - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[patcox2]

42. You need to refine your definition of a "religion."

the individual members of a religion use the roads and other government services, but they also pay taxes. Your post fails to make clear distinctions between the actions of individual religious people and "religions." You have got to do some defining if you are going to seriously talk policy. Who is a "religious official?" I am the senior warden (chairman of the board) of an episcopal church. You telling me that you think I should be legally prohibited from public office? Nice.

You know, you're young aren't you? Just read some Twain and got all riled up? Maybe some Vonnegut, too?

[drdigi420]

51. wow, name calling from a holy roller, not surprising

why do you feel that we should not be allowed to express our well-founded belief that religion is dangerous and causes more problems than it solves?

[telamachus]

61. You should be allowed

but since it violates DU rules I am suprised it is allowed on this board which is not afree speech zone.
(there are no first amedment rights here)

"Don't be rude or bigoted"

"BIGOTRY


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

so to come out against bigots makes me a holyroller???? wow what progresive thinking!

[Djinn]

65. crap

thinking that religion is detrimental or that it is and has been throughout time, a myth to keep people subservient or whatever one feels about religion isn't anymore bigoted than beleiving that the way YOU live your life is "right" and that other people will suffer for all eternity.

If the religious can beleive what they like so can theose of us who think that by this day and age we should have grown out of it.

As to why the mods allow it - maybe they beleive in free speech a little more than you do, no-one is saying teh churches shouldn't exist or shouldn't speak but that should be treated like everyone else.

And religious BIGOTRY isn't allowed, being anti-religious isn't actually the asme thing.

[Cheswick2.0]

25. So you don't believe in separation of church and state?

[shraby]

38. I advocate SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

period. Anything other than that is one slippery slope.

[TheSuaveOne]

26. Yeah

Freedom of religion should be eliminated altogether, damned religous people.</sarcasm>

...la

[skygazer]

28. Why not?

We have "free speech zones" (remember the good old days when the whole U.S. was a free speech zone?) - why not "religious zones". Herd 'em into one area, limit the number they're allowed to have and arrest them if they get on your nerves.

There's never really been any room for true religious belief in a fascist state anyway - just the belief in the state itself.

[telamachus]

29. Point by point:

1/ Religions should be limited such that no one religion (including all secterain versions of one religion) may have members totalling to no more than 20% of the population in any city, town or village.

Sorry the soviet union already tried this one got any original ideas Stalin?

2/ Religions should pay a fair tax on the return of their investments in financial insturments. The donations of the congregation should not be taxed, but the portion of the money that is invested in real estate or any other financial instrument that increases in value, will require taxe payments on these profits.

So you would ban all non profits then?

3/ Religions should be limited to speaking verbally from the pulpit. They would not be allowed to print any publications other than their sacred texts and other items purley for the express purpose of discussing their sacred texts among themselves.

Forget about the first amendment I guess

4/ Religions should not be allowed to canvass any area of any town, city of village and should be excluded from knocking on anyone's door if the householder did not specifically request a visit.

It is called posting a no soliciting sign. has worked for decades

5/ No religious officials holding any paid positions (including those that incur no cash payment, but return payment in goods and services such as lodgings, meals, etc.) may participate in any activity related to, or part and parcel, of the election process.

So if you are a minister you can't vote? Limited voting rights great idea (you are joking!?)

6/ Religions may not host voting booths or promulgate any communications regarding politics or any elections other than for electing people to positions inside their own religion.

Probably not a bad idea and I believe it is against the no profit status to advocate candidates.

7/ Religions leaders would be prohibited from promoting, censuring, mentioning or alluding to any candidates, politicians, measures, propositions, parties or government entities.

Free speech indeed! See above comment.

Why are you so afraid of religious institutions?

[pnb]

31. Add more?

I'll add more...this list is a piece of crap. You really may as well just outlaw religion altogether rather than go through this. You want to limit what people can believe, limit what people can say, limit what people can think, etc. And for what purpose? Because you don't like religions?

This kind of thinking is just as dangerous as the thinking of the fundies.

[Selwynn]

34. religion is a matter of the heart.

I have no problem with anything listed, because they have to do with the incorporation and institutionalization of religion.

If you read the book "The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power" you'll read a compelling story (also a film) about how corporations rose to power and have completed taken over and corrupted the American business market. If you replace "corporations" with "Religious Institutions" you have the exact same thing in religion.

Individuals' personal faith is not the problem, and you can pass whatever laws you want and you'll never take away my right to personal beliefs. But the problem instead is in institutions which should be REGULATED just like corporations should be regulated.

Your particular regulations are over the top, but only marginally so. :)

[patcox2]

39. Read more carefully.

It says things like "no religion shall" and "no religious person shall." When is an action the action of "the religion" and when is it the action of the individual, who is expressing his constitutional right to practice his religion?

Don't let anti-corporatism morph into anti-collectivism, it will bite you in the ass if you do. Collectivism is one of the bedrock liberal principles.

[Selwynn]

52. Well, no collectivism is not a bedrock principle of anything..

..and I believe regious institutions - like all institutions, should be regulated. That's not to say I agree with the orginal poster's list. That list infringes on personal freedoms and private exercise of them and of course I can't support that.

[smirkymonkey]

68. You took the words out of my mouth.

Why do those of faith feel that they need an institution to profess their religious beliefs?

Most institutions are corrupt by their very nature. Where there is a hierarchy, there are individuals jockeying for power, and power plays corrupt both the individual and the institution. It's about ego, which is the opposite of spirituality.

I believe in complete and strictly enforced separation of church and state. This country is getting out of control.

[Beware the Beast Man]

36. In all due respect,

This list is ridiculous. I know you're trying to make a point about profiteering evangelists and churches using their riches and power to manipulate laws and candidates, but what you're proposing is out and out religious persecution. Remember, not everyone who who is spiritual (namely Christian) is a rabid RW fundie bent on reforming the US to Old Testament law. And as others have noted, I hope this post was tongue-in-cheek.

ON EDIT- #6 was spot-on, though.

[ulysses]

41. #6 is problematic

when one takes into account the importance of the black churches during the civil rights movement.

[noahmijo]

43. How about just this simple rule

The moment you start using religion to justify anything other than charity or acts of kindness you are immediately stripped of power and or imprisoned if the act led to violence, death, or destruction.

[Snow]

44. I guess my group loses out...

1/ We're lucky to be 0.2% of any locale
there are such things as small intentional communities, though, like the Amana colonies in Iowa or the Ducubors in Alberta.

2/We don't do investments
and any group that has them big-time, like the Vatican, good luck catching them

3/ We don't have any sacred texts. Or rather, we consider all texts sacred. DOn't have pulpits, either

4/ We don't proseltyze - even embarassed about trying to persuade.

5/ We don't have any paid clergy.

6/ We all do this sort of thing, but not as The Group.

7/ ditto 6.

This whole notion is very problematic. Have you thought about why religious groups get the breaks from government that they do? Does it seem reasonable to have built those breaks in back then, and are those now outdated?

My religious group, by the way, is Society of Friends. I listed out my responses because your list doesn't seem cognizant of anything other than large US Christian denominations. There's a lot more diversity that that out there.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

45. Point by point

1/ Religions should be limited such that no one religion (including all secterain versions of one religion) may have members totalling to no more than 20% of the population in any city, town or village.

The religion that prevails in any given part of the country has more to do with the ethnic groups that settled there than with anything else. Minneapolis is full of Lutheran churches because Scandinavians and north Germans settled there. New York is full of Catholic churches and synagogues because Eastern and Southern Europeans settled there. This point is just silly.

2/ Religions should pay a fair tax on the return of their investments in financial insturments. The donations of the congregation should not be taxed, but the portion of the money that is invested in real estate or any other financial instrument that increases in value, will require taxe payments on these profits.

I don't like the idea of churches having endowments, but it's all that keeps some of the poorer ones alive, which sounds paradoxical, until you realize that some of them are in poor neighborhoods that were once rich.

3/ Religions should be limited to speaking verbally from the pulpit. They would not be allowed to print any publications other than their sacred texts and other items purley for the express purpose of discussing their sacred texts among themselves.

Serious first amendment problems here. Would this mean that a person who was curious about Religion A would have to get an underground copy from a member of Religion A, because copies of their publications would not be publicly available? This is just silly. Besides, you obviously don't know much about mainstream religions if you think that all they do is "discuss their sacred texts."

4/ Religions should not be allowed to canvass any area of any town, city of village and should be excluded from knocking on anyone's door if the householder did not specifically request a visit.

If political parties and commercial sales people and kids raising money for team uniforms are allowed to canvas, then banning religions from doing so would be another violation of the First Amendment. People can always do what homeowners in Iowa did when everyone was canvassing them during the primaries--not answer the door. (That was my experience when I was canvassing.)

5/ No religious officials holding any paid positions (including those that incur no cash payment, but return payment in goods and services such as lodgings, meals, etc.) may participate in any activity related to, or part and parcel, of the election process.

Not even voting? Not even running for office? ("No religious test for public office" means not banning atheists, but it also means not banning people because they DO have a religion or earn their living working for a religious organization.) You may not be aware that many, many religious people, including clergy, are more left than right.

6/ Religions may not host voting booths or promulgate any communications regarding politics or any elections other than for electing people to positions inside their own religion.

Well, maybe. I agree about not promoting candidates, but when it comes to hosting voting booths, sometimes the churches are the only buildings in a community that are easily accessible and not in use on a Tuesday. I've voted in churches, and the polling place is always in some social hall with no political messages on the walls--which would be highly illegal, since it's already against the law to do "electioneering" near a polling place. If you're so allergic to religion that you can't enter a church social hall that contains no religious symbols for five minutes, maybe you'd better get counseling for your phobia.

Or is your position even worse, saying that religious people should be disenfranchised?

Great, half the population already doesn't vote, and you want to alienate everyone who isn't an atheist or an agnostic.

7/ Religions leaders would be prohibited from promoting, censuring, mentioning or alluding to any candidates, politicians, measures, propositions, parties or government entities.

I fully agree about not supporting candidates or parties as an institution, just as other NGO's can't maintain their tax-exempt status if they have a partisan affiliation. No problem there.

The question of speaking out on issues is another matter entirely.

Okay, so my clergy shouldn't have signed a full-page age against discrimination as part of People of Faith Against Bigotry during the campaigns of the Oregon Citizens' Alliance's to discriminate against the GLBT population. The mainstream religious leaders in the Twin Cities shouldn't go to the state capitol and try to convince the legislators to keep social services and education funded. Churches shouldn't send delegations from their congregations to march in peace marches. The leftist Christians who put the full-page Sojourners ad in the Republican Convention supplement should have saved their money.

You appear to have this stereotype of all religious people being Republicans or susceptible to Republican brainwashing. That is simply an ignorant stereotype, and ironically, it is PRECISELY the stereotype that the Republicans love to promote.

[OHswingvoter]

46. this is the kind of stuff

that really turns off people from our party. I am serious. The people who say stuff like this are not doing us any favors in middle America. This is OK if you only want college prof types and easily influenced young kids to support us. But if we want to win we have to won over voters who have middle American values.

I want to win I want to defeat Bush and send him home. Do you?

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[OHswingvoter]

50. you don't have to believe

but if this is truly a "big tent" party, it needs to be accepting of those with Christian beliefs just as it is accepting of those who do not hold such beliefs. If you push these people away, what hope do you have of winning this election?

[drdigi420]

56. i accept anyone's belief

i just believe that ppl that believe in religious myths are being conned and should be told the truth

[LeftyChristian]

59. Facts?

Do you have concrete facts that these fairy tales never happened or that God doesn't exist? How are you any better than Christians, since you are projecting your beliefs on them?

[telamachus]

62. And you know the truth ?

tell all please. Another prankster I think. You are joking right?

[Djinn]

66. so do you need to to agree with a party or group of people

completely and utterly on every issue to supoprt their overall position - I can't think of a single political party or group - or person - that I agree with totally.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[OHswingvoter]

49. hey some of our base

remember them-the people you want to turn out and support this party in novemeber are Christians. Not only that, some of us are bible believing chrisitans just like Bushie. I resent having people smear my religion. I do not smear others religions. I stand by my word that this does not help us in middle America.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[OHswingvoter]

57. saying that someone's beliefs

are "total bullshit" is not respectful.

Sorry but this kind of an attitude will not "play well in Peoria". And I am not "whining" just trying to explain why this turns some people off. Many many Democrats that I know are good Christians. It is a smooth move to make them feel like their beliefs are "bullshit" and they are not welcome in their own party. Really wise way to play it in an election year where we need everyone on our side that we can possibly get. I am not whining, just stating what I see to be a problem that will bite us in the ass.

[Djinn]

67. how would you describe the beliefs of Hindus or Muslims

or Hare Krishna's - you'd probably use more polite language than "bullshit" but it'd essentially be the same thing right?

Also if someone is going to support Bush because there are individuals within the dems support base who beleive religion is a load of fairy stories then they're thick enough to beleive whatever is told to them by Foz and wouldn't be voting Dem anyway

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. Uh, so it doesn't bother you if

Dems act exactly like the Republicans' stereotype of them?

It is a FACT that the Reagan Democrats went for Reagan because they thought that he "shared their values," no matter how false that was.

Now I recognize the militant atheists as people playing out their own personal issues, victims of bad experiences at the hands of sociopaths masquerading as real Christians, but my experiences have been overwhelmingly good, bringing a sense of joy and community and depth. So have most people's, especially if they're in a mainstream denomination and NOT among the fundamentalists.

(I also leave open the possibility that the people who keep posting these taunts are very clever trolls/disruptors and really don't care about religion either way, only about sowing discord on the left.)

I'm not going to leave DU in a huff over these hate-filled posts, since I've been here since February 2001, but if I had encountered a thread like this, say, as a much younger, more conventionally religious person without much life experience or knowledge of the world beyond conventional wisdom, I would have found this thread to be a complete turn-off.

I doubt that I would have become a Republican--I'm neither stupid nor evil--but seeing a succession of DUers post ignorant and unnecssarily rude remarks about an important part of my life, I might well have just become a non-voter. It doesn't take much.

I don't care if you're an atheist or a Trekkie or a worshipper of old peanut butter jars--there's no need to get nasty about someone else's beliefs, especially if your insult is based on igorance about what the other person actually believes.

[Djinn]

75. It would IF that was happening

I probably wouldn't use the term bullshit but the essence is the same - I beleive all religion are myths - that isn't rude, you belive I'm wrong and that Hindu's are wrong and that Muslims are wrong, unless you follow a form of Christianity I havn't heard of that beleives ALL religions have it right - that would have to be a VERY confused religion.

I beleive what I want you beleive what YOU want - I happen to beleive that God does not exist and I have as much right to say that as you do to contradict that, you wont find a single post of mine (and I doubt anyone else here either) that says other people SHOULDN'T beleive what they like but if we don't beleive then INHERENTLY we think those that do are wrong...I honestly don't get why theists get si upset about that, if you're right you can laugh at uss all in the after life.

I assume you don't think everyone posting in "anti-religion" threads are either militant atheists (whatever that is) or trolls/disruptors but I have to say that's how you came across in the above post.

You also mention that anyone who votes Republican is evil or stupid - surely that would mean that Christians and other theists aren't going to jump over to them simply because SOME Dem's and Dem supporters are atheists? Given that I can't think of any Dem's running off the top of my head who have come out and said THEY don't beleive why would what a bunch of people on a forum effect them.

I just don't think there are people here thinking "well Djinn (or whoever) said XYZ on DU so that's it I'm voting for Bush."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

78. You have no idea what I believe at this point in my life

And your characterization is wrong.

Basically, I believe that no one has the whole truth and that I chose my religious affiliation for its cultural fit.

My definition of a militant atheist is someone who can't hear religion mentioned without tossing in a nasty, often ignorant remark.

[Djinn]

82. and my definition of a militant theist

is someone who can't accept that I have every right to say I think if you beleive in God (I made an assumption that you were a Christian based on other posts in other threads, sorry if that was wrong but you do presumably beleive in God??) you're wrong.

See it's a stupid thing to say isn't it.

[The Straight Story]

58. dogmatic belief to the point of fanticism is dangerous for everyone

aye, and it is showing in the dogmatic following of some here of their belief. It showed too during the clinton years when the fanatics would not see anything wrong with the picture, just like now it shows during the bush years when the right side fanatics see no wrong with bush. And those that do see wrong and bring it to light? Well they get told to clam up, might not look good and all ya know. Let it slide "he's our guy" and better than the other guy. We need to pull together to win, nothing else matters, etc and so on.

Bash religions all we want, but at the core of it we may well be no different. We just don't go to a building to do it, we do it online. We play the same games, call people 'freepers', espouse anger at those we hate (or greatly dislike if you wish), we have an enemy who we blame for everything (satan = bush or capitalism or right wingers) and so on.

[telamachus]

64. Probably the most honest opinion

I have ever seen here on DU

Thank you you made my day!!!!!

[drdigi420]

53. why not just sue the churches for false advertising?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. Go ahead and sue them if it will make you feel better

:eyes:

[The Straight Story]

54. Don't forget philosophy, democracy, socialism, et al

Afterall, religion is but a belief system, like any other. Socialism, capitalism, democrats, republicans, religion, humanism, all are beliefs which some people hold and others don't.

[DerBeppo]

69. at least i know that i'm not welcome here.

thanks for clearing that up.

[LDS Jock]

70. I feel the same way DerBeppo

The militant anti-religious posters on this site are just as intollerant as the religious right. This site regularly criticizes those who have religious beliefs, with some posters making nasty comments about anyone who differs with them. Just seems a little hypocritical to me.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. Stay and contest them

They're mostly just repeating stuff they find on militant atheist websites.

And I bet half of them are right-wing trolls trying to make the Dems look bad to casual visitors.

[PassingFair]

73. Right!

So we unaffiliated, rational persons should just IGNORE the fact that our "Godly" resident has taken us to war against the infidel! And is drawing in the faithful to the great crusade?

Time for humanity to grow up, FAST.

Use a strainer to catch the baby, but for the love of humanity, throw out the dirty bath water of mythology and 2000 year old barbarism. The bible cannot really be defended. Stone your children? Stone gays? Put your feet on the necks of women. No thanks!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

77. I rest my case.

Thank you for exemplifying everything I've been talking about in this thread.

:-)

[EST]

79. I find these discussions have a certain irresistible attraction...

The oldest profession was not prostitution, it was spiritual charlatanism.
People have their foibles: they just do. Life is not long enough to be able to "correct" even one other person's views--cast out thine own moat...
People are the way they are, and we miss vast amounts of satisfaction by being frustrated with the way they are, instead of rejoicing in our differences, being tolerant of their tolerance, and committing to have fun with living.
I may just love coffee, but if that's the only thing I have to drink, forever and ever, it's gonna be a little tedious. Shit is the way it is and it ain't no other way. One can enjoy it or fuss about it--which is going to provide the most satisfaction? There are, it appears, two kinds of people, them what thinks there are two kinds of people, and them what don't. Wait, I digress.

Find a way to get along with others, if not to honor and respect them. That, IMHO, is the rock bottom basis of our party, and yes, of course religion is silly, but so is the lack thereof. Anything, pursued to the extreme, can be and probably is far more of a hindrance to peace than an assistance for it. And I'm a gigantic windbag. Have mumbled long enough.

[Djinn]

76. who said that?

unless the admins posted the above it's simply the opinion of the poster - you can take it or leave it, no need to be so sensitive

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. Well, if there were some group that you were affiliatd with

and which had enriched your life beyond measure and which was full of mostly decent, rational, even left-leaning people, you would get mighty tired of seeing that group bashed on a regular basis because of the actions of a mouthy renegade minority (and the fundies are a minority) of its members.

It's EXACTLY like what the fundies do when they accuse gay people of molesting children.

Oh, and the fundies hate Episcopalians like me and other non-fundy Christians even worse than they hate atheists, because they see us as traitors leading the faithful astray. We actually let people doubt, you know.

[Djinn]

83. actually I see it all the time

The majority of my religious friends are people I've met through working with refugees, most are Muslims (and decent leftie types too)they have given me a huge sense of community and fulfilment adnd I see them trashed all the time, they come in for all sorts of ignorant crud even on DU yet instead of getting all huffy I point out where people are wrong (eg the Koran does NOT advocate FGM) and point out why what they say is offensive. You havn't done that you just keep saying that we're militant atheists or trolls and that we are offensive without pointing to specific statements - saying "I beleive you are wrong" is NOT OFFENSIVE.

It's nothing like saying gay people are chesters - if someone repeats the "all Catholic priests are child molesters" line I will completely back you up - it's ignorant and offensive (and simplistic) BUT saying God does not exist isn't.

I'm not too au fait with Espicopalians but I seriously doubt that you beleive that the Hindus and the Jews and the Muslims, and the animists and the pagans etc etc are right - they can't all be.

[EST]

84. The only folks who are truly not welcome here are

those who espouse extremist, bigoted, intolerant views, and refuse to lift that veil of intolerance long enough to allow for any thinking that everyone else in the world may, rightly enough, hold opposing views. So confusingly, what we are most intolerant of is intolerance, because it tends to bring with it disruption, and disruptors tend to act immediately, without thought or consideration, denying humanity to any one else. There are other sites that cater to monolithic thinking and thoughtless condemnation of those of a different persuasion. Here, difference is actually sought after, even praised.

[dudeness]

80. I know I am going to burn in hell..

when i was about 10 y.o my parents forced me to go to church ..man i hated it ..just seemed like a bunch of crap to me..so my myself and my mates used the plate money we were given to buy sweets and drinks..my old man caught us one time and beat my ass so bad it was bruised for weeks..which i found quite ironic..cause the one thing i learnt from my only appearance at church..was to forgive sinners..guess he missed that one..

[Skinner]

85. I apologize that this thread was not locked sooner.

I'm personally embarrassed by the number of people on DU who apparently are opposed to the idea of freedom for everyone. WTF?