It is time to figure out how to discuss things across the chasm of belief

[Az]

We have issues we agree on and issues we disagree on. In order to make the issues we agree on stronger and more effective we have to learn how to discuss the matters we disagree on. Too often they descend into accusations of belittling one another. This has to end.

But it doesn't end just because it needs to. The conversation exists in the way it does because of time. Too much time has gone by without those of differing beliefs talking things over together. The only solution is to spend time undoing the damage seperation has caused. We have to explain to one another the things that we find insulting or demeaning otherwise the dialog will be forever crippled.

Sometimes an insult is percieved where there is none. Sometimes ignorance can create an insult. Unless we take the time to dismantle such collisions they will continue. So take the time. Sit down and explain the things that hurt you. Explain the things in society that threaten you. Believers and nonbelievers see much of the world in different ways.

When a nonbeliever tells you that they feel the religion is responsible for much of the damage in the world they are being honest. Religion is very much a threat to nonbelievers. From their eyes they see little beyond war and hatred being spread by religion. This is completely contrary to what a believer percieves as coming from their beliefs. It is going to take time, patience, and honest effort to bridge a gap such as this. But if we wish to be effective bridge it we must.

Stress from such differences simply does not vanish because we choose to ignore it. That path merely leads to an increase in the stress. It buries it and allws it to fester. Drag the differences out into the light and find a way to increase the understanding. Ignorance is our only true enemy. Understanding, even of our differences, leads to trust and harmony.

We must bridge this chasm. It won't be done without an honest desire to do so. And we will be paralyzed if we don't make the effort. It is time. We need to understand each other. We need to learn how to talk to each other about things we have a world of passion or concerns about. Please. Let us make an honest effort in this direction together. Believers and nonbelievers.

[trotsky]

1. But Az, they started it!

As always, you bring the voice of calm reason. Thank you.

[specimenfred1984]

2. I'm Not Their Therapist

Let them get the mental health help they need from professionals.

[Az]

6. We make the world we live in

If you don't take an active part in the world then you get whatever drops on you. You are their therapist in regards to making others understand you.

Belief is not a mental disorder nor is nonbelief. Both have existed since before we started recording history. Great minds have come from both segements. Great minds continue to be challenged by the question of divinity. Do not be so presumptious to assume you have all the answers where giants continue to ponder the issues.

[distantearlywarning]

3. This is a nice sentiment, but...

What happens when you want to sit down and try bridge the gaps in understanding through conversation and the other side wants to kill you for being different? What happens if they want to kill your neighbors too while you are trying your best to "understand" them?

It takes two to tango. Otherwise, all of this stuff is just a lot of fairy-tale dreaming about a world that doesn't exist.

There are a lot of crazy people out there who aren't really interested in fostering trust and harmony with the other side. Sorry, but it's true.

[Az]

4. Perhaps they don't want to

Perhaps not all believer/nonbelievers are the same. Find out. Talk to them. Its a big world. Not everyone is the same.

[Tux]

13. Try UUA

http://www.uua.org

They allow all kinds of faiths to explore spirituality. No dogma, asking questions is allowed if not required, and they get along with each other. No one forces ignorance on anyone and are free to reject anyting. Hell, mine has atheists that get along with relaistic Christians, pagans, Buddhists, and others.

[libertypirate]

30. Back to fear...

You have to take their fear of being wrong out of the conversation.

I like to play be wrong first, even something stupid works.

I always ask people is that something you think you believe or something you know.

People don't like being wrong, they don't mind being challenged. As long as you are clear you are challenging their knowledge not their belief that is what they think you are doing.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

45. I don't know of any believer on DU who wants to kill atheists

:shrug:

Choose your targets wisely.

[JVS]

105. Ahhh, we've gone soft!

;-)

[CatWoman]

5. That's it!!! I'm ratting on you to Jesus!!!

Just you wait!!!

He'll fix your lil wagon.

:D

[Az]

7. Wouldn't be the first time

I think I have well over a thousand people praying for me by this time.

[Just Me]

8. I guess I simply don't feel compelled to attack others merely due,...

,...to their religion or atheism.

We can still have a conversation about the veracity of situations/behavior and drop the imposition of personal judgments and insults,...can't we?

:shrug:

On edit: Moreover, threads that include a discussion about spirituality need not compel a sleugh of persecution. People can choose to disagree with views without engaging in criticism which is clearly personal in nature.

[Az]

9. In time

But first people have to come to recognise the insults and the concerns.

[libertypirate]

33. That is to technical...

People just need to learn to ask questions about knowledge without addressing faith. It's hard when perspective via the press always revolves around belief and the line get's fuzzy from there.

[Malva Zebrina]

10. well I agree

that anything that will bridge a chasm brings some amount of understanding at some time.

There are some who are willing to accept atheists and some who are not. Virtually every religion has a clause in it's theology that excludes atheism, and dismisses it as "lacking" something that they believers in that religion are divinely privvy to.

While I don't think that bridge will ever be built between religion and atheism because that would involve some serious do over to the theology and I do not see that as forthcoming and it is obvious why, I do think that there are other issues that atheists and those who are believers, can agree on and do so amicably.


I do think a sincere humanist approach has much in common with liberal believers, and, imo it is there that a bridge can be built.

We care for the plight of human beings and the equality of both sexes in a society. We care for the preservcation of the environment, for nature and are awed by it's beauty and adhere to the foundation that to do harm to any, is wrong. We all want to recognize the right thing to do using our understanding if not our natural moral impulse to preserve the species.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Malva Zebrina]

29. Well, I would say

this is my personal experience. I have friends for many years, social friends, not real intimate friends, and I have no idea what their bent is toward religion and they have no idea what mine. It never comes up in the local quilting club, so to speak. Most are, now that I think of it, probably Protestant believers or maybe members of a church who scoff at the whole thing :shrug: but it's social community aspect continues to be the draw for them. I really don't care.

I did have one experience in my nursing career, where the Directress of Nursing was inordinately concerned about the religion of a certain employee and expressed her dismay at the behavior of that employee and said: "But she is Christian, isn't she?" She assumed I was a Christian because my resume is chock full of Saint this and that, parochial schools. The particular employee related to me once that she was a "spiritualist", although I had no idea what that meant and did not care, I did not rat on her because her behavior was not that bad as far as I could see and I was her direct supervisor. This was , btw, against the law, and the directress should never had verbalized a prejudice such as that. Had to stay silent on that one also, if I wanted to keep my job.

Course, I live in the northern outbacks of liberal New England, where religion is not paraded about on the streetcorners because it is considered gross to do those types of public display. I am certain that if I lived somewhere else, the quilting club might be called the Christian Quilting Club. :-)

I take it with a grain of salt and privately laugh at it's crass pomposity.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. What DU Christians want to see non-Christians dead?

:shrug:

Name some names, and I'll personally, as a normally peace-loving liberal Christian, adopt a Skittle-like attitude and go kick their bigoted asses. :-)

[Az]

15. People lead religion and religion tries to lead people

It is true that theistic religions tend to be exclusionary to atheists by definition (there actually are acceptions). But this doesn't mean that adherants necissarily buy it.

Let us say that faith is the mold that a doctrine places on people. It is the mold a person believes they are supposed to believe. But people don't always mesh up with what their faith tells them they should believe. In time they may shift their faith and find themselves at odds with their doctrine or at least those claiming to be responsible for interpretting the doctrine.

In such cases they may freely believe what they will about nonbelievers. They may not be as exclusionary towards them as the doctrine would like. It is with individuals like this that we can form ties. And they are far more common than you would assume.

Religion once enjoyed a time where its word was not only doctrine but law as well. This created an infrastructure that expected compliance in the most absolute way possible. This exists no longer. Church State seperation has freed the masses from this form of tyrany.

Thus the official church positin tends to be more of a guideline for people these days. No longer tied to the institution by fear. People can differ with the church if their reason suggests it. This creates religious individuals with a more nebulous form of belief. Open to discussion with all manner of positions. Take advantage of this and talk with them. Both of you may actually learn things.

[Malva Zebrina]

22. Of course

but, how much can one claim then to be a member if they use cafeteria style pick and choose religion that deviates from the catechism?

I don't consider them an enemy, just making an observation.

and if they should amount to a majority that would accept atheism into the fold, then I would say that the religion would have to reinvent itself to include atheists and that is my point. It cannot.

How can any religion that preaches a belief in a god, actually do that?

Just talking for the hell of it. :-)

[Az]

23. Thats the best reason

re Talking for the hell of it :)

[Inland]

71. The bridge between religion and atheism=liberal democracy.

That's it. Not because it reconciles the beliefs with each other, but because it tells people of irreconcilable viewpoints HOW TO LIVE TOGETHER. Mostly, by LETTING people live together.

Separation of church and state, respect for private beliefs, fair argument over public issues, and avoiding theology as part of a liberal democracy is it.

Conservatives would call that boring, process oriented relativism. I call it getting through the day with the garbage being picked up, the kids getting a larnin', the peace being kept, and avoiding a hammer in the brain during a sectarian riot.

[Boredtodeath]

11. No, it's not time

I am a religious person, but I believe my faith is a very private matter.

I don't want to discuss your religion OR mine and I most certainly don't want to stand by while you preach your religion.

Faith is a deeply private and personal matter and no one should be subjected to sermons (of ANY religion) they don't want to hear.

And there, in a nutshell, is why the framers put the separation of church and state clause in.

[Az]

19. I respectfully disagree

The framers put the Church/State seperation clause to keep the state from exerting power on the church and the church from exerting power on the state. Dialog between the people concerning matters of belief has nothing to do with the seperation issue.

And as it stands discussion of such matters is increasingly vital. Just because you and I may believe that it is wrong to force religion on others doesn't mean that there are those that do believe they are supposed to force theirs. This is the situation that we face.

The right is bolstered by the religious right. And they are very much trying to force their beliefs on others. Their rise is in part due to the rest of societies reluctance to discuss matters of belief. Without the discussion we stagnate. There is no progress in society if we do not discuss each other's world views. In this vacuum those that desire to force their views will simply move in and dominate those too reluctant to occupy the space. Our silence has created the situation that the religious right is leveraging.

Silence equals death. Death is stagnation. It may be uncomfortable but without dialog between differing positions we lose all momentum. We become stagnant. We die.

[Boredtodeath]

28. If I want to discuss religion,

I'll go to CHURCH, not DemocraticUnderground.

And, I disagree with your whole premise. The framers of the constitution put up the wall against government and religion specifically to avoid my having to endure sermons at DemocraticUnderground and ALL political arenas.

[imenja]

106. the problem comes when some use discussion of faith as an opportunity

to enforce their own views on others. I sympathize greatly with the posters comments that faith is a private matter. The problem with the Christian Right is that they make it not only a public matter, but part of the state itself. My beliefs about Abraham, the Resurrection, or the Gospels of Paul have nothing to do with the political problem of church state alignment.

Some anti-religionists on DU have embarked on a crusade to transform the minds of the benighted. When we suggesting discussing policy and strategy to stop the creation of a theocracy, they ridicule our reverence of the Bible and the life of Jesus Christ. When we tell them we do not share the same conception of the literal interpretation of the Bible or hatred of homosexuals that fundamentalists do, they say we cannot truly be Christians, as though that is their providence. They do not wish to explore spirituality; their mission is conversion. Their responses leave me to reach no other conclusion that an atheistic crusade and intolerance itself is far more important to them than stopping the religious right. When they insist on declaring Christianity itself their enemy, they turn their backs on millions of potential allies who share their same concerns about the erosion of separation of church and state. They thus allow Falwell and his kind to triumph.

[Beetwasher]

12. Thoughtful Post and as Usual We're Very Much in Agreement, HOWEVER

I think a lot of the trouble comes from trolls. This is an internet discussion board, there's going to be honest disagreement but there's also always going to be trolling and flamebait and chaos. It's the nature of the beast and there's nothing that can really be done about it. Reasonable people can and will hold reasonable discussions even if they disagrre, but there are always going to be people who enjoy throwing bombs and seeing what happens, just for the fuck of it. It's human nature and it manifests in every group especially when you can do it anonymously.

[Malva Zebrina]

18. It is my observation that bombs are thrown by a lot of people

on DU, believers as well as non believers. Some aggitate for the hell of it .

[Az]

21. The format creates problems

Discussion forums such as DU live on controvercy. If everyone agreed with a position a post on it quickly drops to the bottom. But when people differ on a subject it stays pasted to the top.

Its human nature. We feel more compelled to respond when something agitates us. Agreement leaves us feeling less compelled to respond.

The solution to this problem is of course to consiously respond when a post is good. Even if it is just to say you agree. If enough people do this it can make a difference.

[libertypirate]

16. It's not about belief...

It is foolish to continue with the problem is the differences between people. The problem has nothing at all with people. We are pawns; the problem is the desire individuals have not to see themselves as the problem. We as in we the people don't accept responsibility for the deeds done in our name, then blame our problems on the other team. Really it comes down to bad sportsmanship and an ignorant self-perspective, which perpetuates the self-view that your version or side is the right one.

The issues in play are simply for motivating opposing sides. A person’s belief is really just a tool that has been used to build associations to emotional motivations. Same with the lack of belief as long as you’re following the subplot and have taken a predictable position you have just been blinded by your emotional motivations.

Take the Schiavo story; I didn’t want to waste my time on it, but like many others who knew many more things were important I ended up wasting a significant amount of my time on it. The reason, I was appalled by a total lack a decent behavior even though there was nothing to gain from paying attention to the story.

[Walt Starr]

17. Nope, sorry, "cultural war" was declared on me years ago.

I'm not going out without a fight.

[Az]

24. Then fight effectively

I too am fighting. I want to advance my beliefs. I am not going to accomplish that just by telling someone they are wrong. I have to open a pathway to them in such a way that my ideas can carry weight. Without that first step its just lobbing empty shells at each other.

[Walt Starr]

25. Sorry, I won't even attempt conversation with those who declared war on me

They are my mortal enemy as evidenced by their rhetoric. They declared war on me. War is violent, ergo, all these people understand is violence.

There is no reasoning with somebody like that. When it comes down to it, and I believe it will come down to it one day not too far in the future, all there will be is kill or be killed.

These people are insane and there is no way to fight against that except by answering their violence with an even more powerful and effective violence.

[Az]

27. Then you will lose

They outnumber you. Those you will find yourself most opposed to already see you as less than human and will not be stopped by pleas of compassion. They will simply roll over you. You will be ineffective.

Use your mind. Find a path that can lead to victory. Your response is one of haste and emotion rather than one of effectiveness and reason.

[Walt Starr]

51. Maybe now you understand why I support gun owner rights

They may roll over me, but not before I take several dozen of the inhuman bastards out!

[imenja]

107. always nice to find a true humanitarian

Why bother with political action or tolerance when you can commit mass murder. So much for the argument that gun owners lack criminal intent. I'll have to remember that next time I encounter you in the gungeon.

[Colorado Blue]

20. I agree completely. If nothing else it would be awesome to

see a bit more tolerance and respect among DU'ers. I've seen quite a few posts that were actually quite savage, really angry, brutal stuff that does absolutely nothing to foster the exchange of ideas. And I doubt, alas, that it was all from trolls or outsiders!

There were some posts yesterday that in practically one breath managed to insult women, black people, people of a certain faith, citizens of a certain nation, and the orthodontic ally challenged.

The thread was locked but not before some pain was inflicted. Many people read the threads here and many, beyond those who reply, are affected. But beyond that, the hatred spewed forth in that vein is enabling to haters and bigots; it gives a stamp of respectability to the intolerant.

The issue isn't really whether one believes in another's religion or not, it's the essential question of civility and moderation that's so fundamental to life in a democratic society that's at stake here.

The separation of church and state wasn't really the whole intent of the Framers: rather it was the assumption that people of all or of NO faith would be able to live together without fear of prosecution. That was a rare thing then and it is a rare thing now, and something to be cherished.

Even on a wild and woolly Internet board there should be SOME self-restraint, I think! And perhaps, it couldn't hurt to develop some simple compassion for others, who might be wounded psychically or in actually, by ones words or by the ripple effect they can acquire.

[Az]

26. Freedom of speech does not mean everyone has to listen

Just because you have the freedom to say a thing does not mean others have to sit and listen. If you want people to listen to you and consider your words you have to present them in ways they can tolerate and embrace.

So many wish others to be freed of the delusions and misinformation they percieve them being tied to. They want them to be freed so bad that they blurt out words they percieve to be truth in the hopes that they will shatter their shackles. The problem is that they are not shackles. They are the armor that the people willingly hold to themself. This approach is is futile.

People do not have their belief ripped from them by another's words. They set it down on their own or have it ripped from them by tradgedies. The only way dialog can change anothers beliefs is with the development of trust, compassion, and time. Only in that way can an exchange of ideas build up to alter a person's views over time.

[Ron Green]

34. Thanks for your thread and your posting, Az. I think the truth that is

coming out is that continued reason and openness in the face of fearful screaming is a courageous act, and we at DU are called upon, in these times in our world, to have courage. It's easy to flame and put up defenses, and those at FR have the patent on that. What's hard is what thoughtful people here are doing: staying open to ideas that may go against what they believe, and allowing themselves to entertain what may shake those beliefs, perhaps even learning something in the process.

[Colorado Blue]

92. Thank you for the thread and for your wise words. nt

[imenja]

108. actually it's not futile. It makes our belief stronger

It causes us to fortify our religious identity. Discussions with extremist atheists have done more to solidify my commitment to Christianity that any priest could ever do. So you see, they carry out God's work.

[imenja]

31. Focus on policies rather than beliefs, and take ACTION

When I've asked DU atheists why they resent Christianity, they invariably discuss the Christian Right. The thing is, we all oppose this improper alignment of Church and State. None of us on DU supporting teaching divine whatchamacallit, the pseudonym for creationism. None of us wants the conservative fundamentalists running this country. So if we focus on specific policy matters that disturb us rather than questioning and attacking belief itself, then we'll get somewhere. What people think, talk, and pray about in the privacy of their homes and churches threatens no one. The problem comes about when they try to use the government to impose their religious views on the rest of us. Atheists need to realize that progressive Christians resent that every bit as much as they do. So the question is, do we want to stop them or bicker endlessly?

[info being]

36. It isn't that difficult

As an agnostic, I just don't like when people's heads are filled with garbage like religion. It makes logic and reason nearly impossible. I'm talking about any religion or spirituality that is not based on truth...not just Christianity.

[imenja]

40. so what?

How about minding your own business? It would never in a million years occur to me to tell someone their faith or disbelief was "nonsense." It is quite simple: Do you value tolerance and freedom or not? I do. It seems, based on your post above, that you do not. Is your insistence on imposing your own views on the rest of the world really more important than achieving political goals? Are you incapable of distinguishing between ego and truths?

In my view, if one focuses on the material world alone, he opens his mind to only a partial consciousness. If we consider the possibility of the metaphysical, we see far more than we might otherwise imagine. Brazilians understand this well. They forsake neither science nor reason in pursuit of faith; rather they experience a broader reality that those of us in the West, mired in materialism, never imagine. Still, if you prefer to acknowledge only half of life, only the material, that is your concern entirely. I spend not one moment of thought thinking about how I can convert you. It simply does not interest me. Moreover, my ego is not so inflated as to imagine that I have a right to determine how everyone on the planet should think.


I've had it with evangelicals, both theistic and atheistic.

[Az]

43. Consider the path this response sends the dialog down

You have turned it into an accusation against the previous post. What do you suppose their response can possibly be? They were expressing an opinion. Your position differs. We know this. How do we bring understanding to both the positions?

If you have had it with extremism then how do you effect it? How do you change things?

Find out what their concerns are. They are real. They have an impact on them. Try to inform them in ways they can accept without having to be defensive. If you assail them then they will return what they percieve they are recieving. Just as you percieved their comments as an attack.

[imenja]

47. You may have a point. Actually, I don't think you do.

I see nothing legitimate about someone's insistence on dictating my
private beliefs. I'm not interested in finding out what motivates people's prejudices against me. If he had said he refused to accept the fact that I was homosexual or heterosexual, would that be any less acceptable? I think not. People are who they are. The world is made up of all kinds. If that is so difficult for some to understand, that is a matter for their conscience. If people are interested in changing American politics, then I'm on board. But if the purpose of this is some sort of group therapy session to figure out why people feel compelled to impose their views on the rest of humanity, I'm not interested. That is a problem for them to work out themselves.

[Az]

49. Not group therapy. Social advancement

If We The People are not open and embracing of a dialog of the things most important to us then a serious vacuum appears. And in this vacuum those that wish to have their specific beliefs forced on others will appear.

There is a giant hole in our society where a vital dialog should be. No one dares tread there because we have grown so far apart. No one that is except those with an agenda. The only way to force the religious right or others claim dogmatic authority is to fill the public square with vital and positive dialog on matters of belief.

[imenja]

60. so please explain to me what the dialog is?

Since I challenge no one's atheistic beliefs, that does not seem to be at issue. Then, the dialog centers around whether my head is filled with garbage? Do you see why I might not want to play this game?

[Az]

61. Of course there is risk

Anything worth achieving carries some risk. The purpose of dialog is to draw out the ideas and notions that we share and include how our particular thinking arrives at such a position. We do not have to force others to accept the means by which we arrived at our positions. Rather we are increasing their awareness that there are multiple paths to the same destination.

We are the party of the big tent. Diversity is our crede. Yet we have many positions that we share in common with one another. This despite our high diversity of beliefs. Obviously there are different paths to our shared conclusions. Increase the awareness of this fact. You don't have to convince someone you are right because of how you got there. You only have to let them know that there are different ways of getting there.

[imenja]

65. risk?

what risk? It's abuse. Honestly, you can't be serious here. And what is this shared destination? I don't see it. It's obviously not political action. It's not God, it's not tolerance or acceptance. Because someone calls themselves a Democrat means I'm supposed to serve as an outlet for their pent-up frustrations? I don't accept that in my private life and I won't accept it here.


You see, what you propose isn't dialog. You're asking me to be a guinea pig for proselytizing or a whipping girl. I'm not sure which. Neither are worthwhile causes.

[Az]

75. We seem to be missing each other

I am in no way suggesting you should be a whipping post. But our society is a tad complex. There may be aspects of it you do not experience or currently understand. This doesn't mean you cannot understand them. We can learn things.

So when faced with a person that is lashing out you ask yourself some questions. Why are they so angry? Note their anger is real. Let them know that you believe their anger is falsely laid at your feet and then try to find out where it came from in the first place.

Also realise that dialog on a public forum such as this is more than just a two way conversation. What you cannot convince the person talking to you about may reach others that are lurking or reading through. So it is always effective to try to present the best case argument for your point in hopes that someone will be reached.

In the end it really becomes a question of what you are trying to do. If you are trying to be effective then you need to lead with arguments that have a chance of reaching people. You have to tailor them to their way of thinking if you can.

If on the other hand you are simply looking to vent and argue with your emotions and feel vindicated by declaring someone a terrible person because they hurt you then you will remain a victim. For this route has no chance of progress. It may feel good in the short term but it does not change your condition at all.

So the paths are there before you. Rage or dialog. I choose dialog.

[imenja]

82. okay, that's a nice Buddhist message

and I can see your wisdom about how one approaches discussions. You are unquestionably the most civil and composed DU member.

In terms of this particular set of posts and thread, I still don't understand what the dialog is about. I suppose the thing I should learn to do is ignore such posters, because clearly they do not want to listen. I presented the argument as clearly as I could in my first post here. It was rejected. I thought the point was to establish a common ground for political action. Evidently I was wrong. What other point is there to having this discussion?

If this is a let's all get along thread, I have no problem with that. I'm all about tolerance. Obviously others are not. It's not my responsibility to change them, and I am simply not capable of it. I do not have a PhD in psychology, and I lack the requisite patience for such a task. Besides, it's just beating my head up against a brick wall. I've tried it dozens of times already, and it never works.

[info being]

70. OK, let me pose something more tangible then:

Do you ever ask yourself the question: "What would Jesus do?" Is that sort of at the core of your opinions about stuff?

[imenja]

85. and how does this concern you?

[info being]

96. Because if you ask such a silly question...

There's no way I can have dialog with you on anything meaningful.

[imenja]

102. what silly question did I ask?

I've missed something here? You mean that if I try to follow an example of compassion and forgiveness in my private life you find that unacceptable? Why? Is your mission to spread the opposite? I think lots of people have got that one covered already.

Or do you imagine that I somehow going to ask you to live your life as I do, that I will say something as trite to you as "what would Jesus do"? I am not a bumper sticker. If you have paid even the slightest attention to any of most posts, you would see your personal religious beliefs do not concern me in the slightest. My argument has consistently been one of advocating tolerance, respect, and political action.

If I proselytize on anything, it is history. Whether you choose to follow any religion has no impact on my life, but a disinterest in history does. History is essential to understanding in their appropriate context current political events and making informed choices in the voting booth. The absence of that curiosity and education among the American public results in politicians like George Bush and Tom DeLay. On that, I relentlessly and unrepentantly proselytize.

[info being]

69. See I'm not interested in a public dialog on matters of belief

I'm interested in discussing practical matters that exist within the realm of our shared reality.

[imenja]

109. that was what I proposed in my first post

I proposed that we discuss policy concerns about the dangers of the religious right and how we can stop them. Your response: the problem is your belief in Jesus Christ? As though the little Bible on my shelf and my rosary beads had even the slightest affect on your life. This is what irritates me. I try to talk about political action to maintain a separation between Church and State, and you insist on ridiculing my private thoughts. It simply is wrong.

[info being]

67. My prejudice is not against you

My prejudice is against your beliefs. Having a flawed belief system is not the same thing as being homosexual. Saying that "we are who we are" illustrates my original point. I'm interested in transcending who I am today by examining and re-examining my beliefs and my ideas. Religious people are not.

[imenja]

86. on that you are mistaken.

You don't understand religion, so you imagine it to be superficial, like choosing your favorite philosopher among the works available at Barnes and Nobel.

I reproduce here a post from another thread. I do so with reluctance, because I sense it will not be greeted with respect. I guess this is one of those risks AZ referred to.

"I am Catholic because I am Irish-American. I am Catholic because of my grandmother, who remained Catholic despite seeing the Klan burn a cross on her yard. I am Catholic because of my ancestors who endured starvation and oppression at the hands of the English and maintained their religion anyway. I am Catholic because of all the nuns and priests in my family before me, because of all the Baptisms and First Communions generations of my family celebrated. I cannot change my religion because it ties me to my ancestral past, to my Grandmother whom I loved more than life itself. This is not a decision. It is not a methodology. It is who I am.

So you see, when you attack the legitimacy of my religion, you attack me. You imagine religion to be a superficial sort of belief one picks up and discards. It is not. Palestinians don't convert to Judaism, despite the obvious inconvenience in remaining Muslim or Christian. Jews did not abandon their faith because of Hitler's genocide. They could not. They cannot. Nor will I. It is simply who we are."

My concern is not your spiritual beliefs or disbeliefs. I consider that to be a matter entirely for your own conscience, as are mine. I only ask that you treat all of us, theists and atheists, with respect and tolerance. It is for you to decide if those are values you wish to uphold.

[info being]

95. Still a decision.

I WAS an Episcopalion. Then I decided there was no sense living a lie.

[imenja]

103. and now you've found a new crusade

to rid the world of prayer.

[libertypirate]

88. Religious people are about the opposite

They live with in a system of acceptance via their structured beliefs. They accept God he accepts them, yada yada yada. They are not to challenge their belief or God, they instead are taught to challenge other beliefs outside of their own.

[imenja]

90. you are entirely uninformed

and have obviously not read many posts by DU Christians. Or if you looked at them, you didn't contemplate them long enough to challenge your preconceptions. I answer this at length is the theology forum, but I imagine that wouldn't interest you.

[imenja]

48. moreover

That poster responded specifically to a post I offered about finding common ground. What was his response: your head is full of garbage. I suggested a political allegiance, he refused. Getting the right out of public life seems to be far less important to some that remaking the world in their own image. You will never succeed in numbing my mind to the point where I accept that.

[info being]

64. And here's a tip for you:

Don't talk about me like I'm not on the same thread. You are not doing as you espouse here either. You are treating me like "someone who may have a valid concern that needs to be changed."

[imenja]

66. if you have replied to my post, I would have addressed it to you

but you did not. Change the pronouns. The point is the same.

[info being]

63. Truth is more important to me than political goals

I don't really understand the impulse underlying your question about ego and truths. I don't see any connection between the two actually.

The main problem I have with Christians is that they ask, "What would Jesus do?" I like to ask, "What works" or "What's true." I don't really care what someone things a person who lived 2000 years ago would do. Therefore, we have no common ground to even begin a discussion because the discussion cannot be based on anything meaningful at all.

And to pretend that basing a belief system on observable fact is the same thing as making up a religion is laughable.

[imenja]

89. ego and truth

My point is about an inability to distinguish what you believe from absolute truth. This post again affirms that. To imagine that the only possible truth is based on one's own experience and beliefs is, I believe, a dangerously ignorant position. George Bush has this same tendency. That's what makes him so myopic in his view of the world. He is simply unable to understand that some might not imagine democracy and freedom in the way he does. The world is full of different experiences, cultures, and ways of thinking. Yours or mine are not the only possibilities. Truths are multiple, not singular. This is a basic foundation of education: one must be open to possibilities in order to learn.

I don't understand the problem with others asking what would Jesus do. Jesus lived a life founded on love, forgiveness and care for the poor. If those are values you despise, then naturally you would object to him. If you find those admirable qualities, why does it bother you when others use him as inspiration to guide their own actions?

You don't care about a person who lived 2000 years ago. Very well. I'm not asking you to care. That is your business. As a historian, I find this more troubling in terms of your opposition to knowledge than on religious grounds. But I realize many people don't care about history. They don't care about what their government has done in the name of democracy and freedom. They don't care about slavery. I found myself appalled today by two students who slept through a lecture I gave on US-funded torture in Latin America. I incredulously asked them how it was even possible. But of course, they quite tragically don't care about anything outside of their own narrow existence.


Your final statement: "And to pretend that basing a belief system on observable fact is the same thing as making up a religion is laughable." That is truly laughable, because religion is not based on fact. It is faith. It requires no proof. What it demands, Soren Kierkegaard notes, is "a leap of faith." Empiricism and religion are unrelated. "Facts"--a class and racially-bound concept that emerged as part of the positivist ideology accompanying the development of capitalism, govern the material world. Religion inhabits the metaphysical.

So you choose to close your mind to much of the world around you: history, the metaphysical; and seemingly anything that you don't already know to be true. There are doubtless other things about which you care little. I feel quite sorry for that, not that you aren't a Christian. That is quite honestly of no importance to me. But it does disturb me greatly that you would purposefully seek to limit your knowledge: not caring about people born 2000 years ago, and imagining that no reality exists outside your own orbit. But, of course, there is nothing new here. Our country is full of people who share your disinterest.

[info being]

99. And sometimes the truth is that we cannot know the truth

When you admit that The Bible is not God's truth, then we can talk.

[imenja]

100. You obviously aren't paying attention

and haven't read many of my posts. I made that very point yesterday in the theology forum. The Bible is a book comprised of a collection of accounts written by men. As such it is fallible. I am so tired of atheists using me as a proxy for their arguments against fundamentalists. As my first post in this thread said, my views are entirely different from theirs. If you are really determined to foment this hatred you have toward Christians, it would be useful to learn a little something about this enemy of yours.

But how does my view of the Bible have anything to do with my appeal to form a political alliance to challenge the church-state alliance between engineered by the Christian Right through the Republican party? Is your prejudice toward Christians so great that you invoke your remedial level of theology as a reason to avoid such political alliances? No wonder the Right wins. The battle we on the left face in overcoming ignorance in a wide variety of areas, yours being one of them, is overwhelming. You need to ask yourself what is more important to you: getting the right out of power or wallowing in your own prejudice.

[libertypirate]

41. You don't understand the power of belief...

May I illustraight...

What happens if I were to make a statement such as:

It is likely that George HW Bush is a pedophile.

People who have not seen the Franklin case, and Washington Times sex scandle articles would likely think I am a donut short of a dozen. I mean how would it go unnoticed, this man was once the president.

You can believe anything you want but with a complete absence of knowledge how the hell do really know anything.

[info being]

62. You may have illustrated one point

The part about being devoid of logic. I don't understand what you are saying.

[libertypirate]

93. Blanked - Sorry

You can believe anything you want but with a complete absence of knowledge how the hell can you be sure you really know anything.

When something doesn't exist within your personal frame of history you are void of the knowledge.

If you don't know it happened you don't know the whole picture.

[Az]

94. Logic and critical thought are not the only tools the mind uses

In fact they are not even the most convincing to some. Reason and critical thought are not called on by the mind unless there exists doubt on the matter. A persons experiences and life create the emotional balance upon which they base their view of the world.

For most things our mind remains swayed to one side or the other. But occaisionally there are conflicting notions that enter the mind. This creates a balance between opposing positions within the mind. This is the nature of doubt. And doubt leads to stress. The mind prefers to have a strong stance on a position.

In order to shift the balance created by this internal doubt the mind reaches out to various tools it develops. For some those tools are reason and critical thought alone. But others turn to signs of portent and other forms of deciding an issue. These are just as convincing to the mind if not more so in some cases that the most well formed logical arugment. Particularly if the individual has developed a reliance on such methods.

Another factor that can cause a pure application of critical thought from making a difference is the combination of means of dealing with these balances within the mind may create a differing set of premises upon which a person develops their basis for reason. Within this construct their application of reason makes perfect sense. Combined with what you may consider an unfounded position their universe makes perfect sense to them. Perhaps part of it is based on experential events that were interpretted as divine in nature. Perhaps it is an overwhelming sense of how things seem to be.

The point is that they use reason. They have means of resolving conflicts that use other methods than just nonemotional critical thought. Thus insisting that your application of critical thought trumps theirs is going to be met with blank stares from them.

This doesn't mean they are crazy. It doesn't mean they are stupid. It simply means they are human, living their life as best they can with the experiences and paths laid our before them.

[info being]

98. Why does every Christian I know make that argument?

I'm not claiming to have 100% absolute knowledge on anything! That's what Christians do. I'm comfortable not knowing for certain what is not knowable for certain.

I can think about what is likely based on logic and evidence. I can embrace the fact that I am human and have been endowed with only so many senses...and anything beyond that can only be inprecise.

[imenja]

104. knowledge and it's limitations

Not at all. Believers accept that there is much they cannot know. Part of this comes from the fact that we conceive of reality in much broader terms than materialists. We understand that there is more to life than what we can touch and feel. Faith requires surrendering to what ultimately cannot be known.

I myself value logic and reason a great deal. The point you raise about our being humans and thus limited is an important one. Despite our knowledge of science and our powers of reason, we cannot know everything. Think of the state of scientific knowledge 300 years ago versus what is known today. If an 18th century European had insisted all that was possible was that what he could verify scientifically, he would have committed himself to ignorance. Science too has limitations. It did in 1700 and it does today. Scientists will be able to measure and observe far more in 2300 that they can today. It has occurred to me that they may learn to explain what we know conceive of as the metaphysical. So my point is that just because you don't see something, just because you do not have proof of God, spirituality, or some greater force of creation, does not mean it cannot possibly exist. Of course, you are entirely free to believe in only that which you can observe scientifically. I would, however, caution you to reconsider your assumptions that Christians and theists more generally are essentially irrational. These are questions that, you must acknowledge, are unknowable given our limitations as human beings.

I acknowledge there is a great deal I do not know. If I didn't, I would be a fool. In my experience, the most ignorant people are those who imagine they know everything, because they close their minds to other possibilities.

[Cats Against Frist]

101. Wait -- in the other thread you claimed to be agnostic

but you just said: "any religion or spirituality that is not based on truth."

I think, unless you want to sound like a psycho, you should change truth to "verifiable physical reality," because -- if you KNOW what the "truth," is, then you should have no problem choosing the appropriate modifiers to go along with your agnosticism.

[byronius]

32. Gibbons laments in Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire

how Christianity would occasionally move away from what Gibbons believes is its primary foundation, reason and logic, and become overwhelmed with the more popular miracle/vision-based weirdness that we see in the Fundamentalists today. Gibbons said that the "romantic" version of Christianity tended to be self-perpetuating, socially disruptive and full of charlatans, and would eventually lead to a collapse of belief among many adherents when the miracles and "end of the world" statements were revealed to be both false and manipulative. He wrote this in 1782.

He reveals himself to be a devout Christian who believes Christianity should always consider and support science, of all things. He also clearly states that "miraculous" Christianity destroys all social dialogue. The endless wars between the Niceans and the Arian 'heresy' are a perfect example. It is impossible to conduct a rational dialoque with someone who believes rationality is evil.

[info being]

35. Just admit that...

religion is responsible for much of the damage in the world. Then we can have a dialog.

If you choose to ignore fact and truth, there simply isn't much to talk about.

[libertypirate]

39. religion is responsible for nothing....

Things taking responsibility for the actions of people. Defining their ideas as the corruption now that is winning the hearts and minds.

Religion doesn’t believe anything that is what people do. Blaming catagories is un-american.

[Az]

42. This difference comes from

the different views of what religion is. Some view religion as a particular teaching or doctrine. Others view religion as a social construct that influences society in it's own interest. Viewing it in such diverse ways leads to different conclusions of its impact on society.

This is exactly the kind of difference of position that has to be dragged out in the open and discussed. Some people really do believe that religion is a great threat if not the greatest threat to our society. Others believe it is our only salvation. Thats a pretty big rift. We need a lot of discussing to bridge that sort of gap.

[libertypirate]

44. No we don't....

We need to stop acting as if there needs to be something besides our vested interest in each other to bridge any ideological gap. What part of your beliefs are you willing to yield? What are you willing to get over? Your asking for people to exclude something of themselves to communicate with you. Most people may not know this but I find people with strong belief systems to be very protective of their beliefs. Your asking people to do what they fear in questioning their beliefs or what supports their belief.

Starting a conversation on the topic of least agreement is not the way to begin to build a bridge. It's quite frankly the quickest way to do the opposite.

[Az]

50. Purity and Diversity

You seem to be suggesting that a dialog is pure. One topic only. This is not human nature.

What I am trying to encourage is discussion between beliefs that include both the differences and the similarities. You cannot build trust without finding common thoughts. And you cannot learn things without finding differences.

There need be no giving up of beliefs. But there may be learning and shifting of understanding.

A person can talk about how their particular beliefs lead to their positions on matters. If these positions are shared with others that base their arrival on them by different means then you can have a increase in trust along differing beliefs.

[libertypirate]

56. I think you are missing something....

You can't even interface with them via their beliefs they won't let you.

The only person who will be shifting possitions is you, this is a protection mechanism that is feared upon religion minded individuals.

Even if they might have to at some far off point shift any idea closely related to any of their beliefs they will resist and reject you. Think of it this way they are protected by their God as long as they protect him.

[Az]

58. Try it

You may be suprised. Not all believers are cut from the same cloth. Really.

[info being]

74. You are wrong on this.

It is possible to have a functional relationship, as I do with my Fundie parents. However that relationship must be based on something other than ideology and beliefs. So, no, we should not talk about it. We should talk about everything but.

[Az]

76. I have found the opposite to be possible

I enjoy many friendships with people of very strong beliefs. And we actively discuss matter of belief. Particularly how one arrives at one's positions in life by means of our beliefs.

I do not expect everyone to have the same experiences as me however. So I can well imagine why you would be so skeptical. I can only relate my own anecdotal evidence and suggest that I know that it is possible.

[info being]

77. And I respect your experience as well.

If it has been rewarding for you to have these discussions, good for you.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[libertypirate]

81. Exactly that is why I constantly question them...

Where is the morality in this?

or

How do conservatives address personal responsibility in that?

Really it's about giving them the rope to hang themselves on. You have to get them to acknowledge they are wrong before they will believe it.

[info being]

83. But nothing matters aside from the beliefs they make up.

And the thing about made-up shit...its never wrong to you. So they can be wrong about other stuff, but the other stuff doesn't matter.

[libertypirate]

87. Dude it's more simple then that...

Try finding answers without questions.

[info being]

72. Regarding this "let's discuss religion" bit:

Don't assume that my insensitivity toward Christians is because I haven't been exposed to them. I've found that the more I discuss things with Christians politely and calmly, the more I grow to dispise their beliefs. My parents are Fundies. We have a great relationship. I've talked endlessly about Christianity with a friend. I think his fundamental approach on life is dead wrong. I even read most of the bible when I was younger.

My strong distaste for Christianity comes from a deep understanding of it. I have found that it doesn't matter how much we talk about it. Our fundamental assumptions and worldviews are incompatible. That's precisely the problem with religion.

[imenja]

91. again, this is another example of where your disinterest in history

leaves you greatly uninformed.

[theharbinger]

37. good luck with that

http://www.interfaithalliance.org/site/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp?c=8dJIIWMCE&b=258308

I like what this organization is trying to do. They seem to be making an effort to address this gap between people of differing faiths.

I think at the moment you're seeing some reactionary stances from people. Christians I know would say 'they don't represent me' in regards to the fundamentalists in the news of late. That may lead them to speak out in a way that seems (or is) confrontational. I have grown up in this country whose dominant (in terms of numbers) belief system I do not share, and have developed a great resentment for Christianity as a whole. Its almost everywhere, and everywhere it isn't someone of that faith is trying to put it there. Its pervasive and oppressive from my point of view. Thats another aspect of it. If I stop to think about it, I have many Xtian friends, and we get along fine without talking about religious matters.

I think someone who truly believes something should have no trouble speaking with people who believe differently and be cordial and respectful about it. However, that requires a certain maturity level and strength of conviction that some may not have. Also, certain faiths make it a point to go out and convert people which places them in something of an adversarial role in the minds of a great many people to begin with. Nobody that I've known has ever enjoyed being proselytized to.

Thats why I pointed out the Interfaith Alliance, as they are actively trying to work together and create an environment of goodwill and understanding between religions. They probably aren't the only ones, but they're the ones I've heard of the most.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

38. excellent post Az, kick

it seems that our emotions always get the best of us. If one does not recognize that being beligerent does not foster open dialogue and open minds, one will fail at communicating.

[Ron Green]

52. However, if we carry this one step further ...

we would allow people with right-wing political views to post here with impunity, because to consider those religious views that are anathema to us (which I agree we should do) implies that we should not reject out of hand ANY types of views without a fair hearing. And of course DU, by its nature, does not give a hearing to the RW nut-jobs.

I think it will be difficult to keep the dialog open in the religious/spiritual arena whilst closing it in the political.

[Az]

54. Intent

Those that come here to push rightwing philosophies have no desire to find common ground. They are not looking to increase understanding.

Dems and those not dedicated to the right have some measure of common ground and are trying to find a way to increase their effectiveness. To ommit belief as a discussion point is fatal in such a course. Belief for many is the determining factor in how they come to their views. While Church and State must always be kept seperate belief and politics can never be seperated in a person.

Thus to deliberately silence ourselves on the topic most critical to how our views are formed is not only foolish but in the end destructive.

[Ron Green]

57. I agree, and this is why I would prefer that RWers not be summarily

tombstoned. I'm relatively new here and don't know all the history of trolling and freeping on this board, and I also know that there ARE somewhere boards that allow both ends of the spectrum, but I'd like to give some of the right wingers a chance to be logical.

[Az]

59. Haven vs Forum

I suspect the reason the rightwings get the boot so quick is because the first intent of this site is a haven for a society that is increasingly becoming a shouting match favoring right wing ideologies. There are more than enough forums out there giving voice to the right and engaging in discussions between the sides. Unfortunately the history shows that the right seems to engage in horde attacks and emotionally overwhelming screeds.

DU tries to be a place for Dems and left leaning individuals to come and share their views and figure out how to bring sanity back to a world they percieve as being pulled to its destruction by the right.

[checks-n-balances]

53. I'm trying to understand this thread; what did I miss yesterday??

I was only on until about 2:00 p.m. Eastern, and really didn't get back on till a few minutes ago. Can someone summarize, or point me to some web pages so I can understand this discussion? Thanks in advance...

[Zhade]

55. Kick for Az, one of the best DUers around.

I always appreciate your posts.

[kaitykaity]

68. Funny how the folks whining about how we supposedly

mistreat Christians on DU never made it over to
this wonderful thread. I even missed it when I was
arguing with three of them in that other thread.

I guess I'm still too irritated to be of much help
in this effort to extend the hand of friendship.
It's a good sentiment, though.

[noiretextatique]

78. it's not just religion

religion gets more attention because there are a large number of believers. i think some of the turmoil is because some believers are not used to having their beliefs ridiculed (understandably), analyzed...or challenged. and of course some of the non-believers seem to do their best to insult people. a sensible suggestion indeed, Az, one that i hope can be applied to other discussions as well. race and culture, for example, often tend to create more flame and light here.

[Behind the Aegis]

79. How can we do this?

I understand what you are saying, but there are SOME here that claim that just about ANY disagreement with them if "bashing!" I don't like to see hateful posts, no matter who the target is (well, there are a few that I feel deserve it). Why all this wailing and gnashing of teeth? Why not use the "hide the thread" function? OR "alert?" OR hell, why not just IGNORE IT!?

If the post is made out of ignorance or lack of exposure, use that as an opportunity to EDUCATE instead of WHINE! I have read many posts by you and that seems to be your goal: EDUCATION! I can appreciate that. But, I have a real beef with those that are always the "victim." Persecuted Christians? Try living in China and understand REAL persecution. Better yet, try walking down the street holding the hand of a same-sex person and act as if you are in love...you will get to see persecution, BUT QUICK!

There are many Christians on this board with whom I have lovely conversations, even when we disagree. Then there is the "whiner bunch." Well, I am tired of the constant whining about how hard they have it here...THEY DON'T! WE all are emotional creatures and Christians aren't the only group who feels emotions, including being offended.

[Az]

80. The many faces of persecution

There are many ways to be persecuted. Atheists are persecuted in different ways than blacks or homosexuals. Fundamentalists experience persecution in completely different ways. All from the same society. The first thing to realise is that the whiners really do feel persecuted. Even if they seem to be blind to the persecution of those they claim are persecuting them.

A diverse society is a changing society. This represents persecution to those that believe they have a fixed definition of morality. Changes in morality are percieved by them as corruption of moral values.

Changes in society do not happen simultaneously across all segement of the population. It is a dynamic thing. One edge of the soceity figures out that some existing moral position does not make any sense any longer. They formulate arguments and reasons for this to be true. Other segements accept these arguments and change begins to take hold.

But others within the society may not base their reasoning on the same premises as the leading edge. Thus the arguments may not carry as much weight if any at all. Thus they do not accept the change in society and resist it.

Some issues have a stronger sticking point for some beliefs. So as social acceptance of these positions build up they become oppressive to the individuals that have not accepted them. Sometimes the resistance can become strong enough to counter the progressive movement and force society to take a step back.

This continuing process creates many different forms of persecution. Those on the side of the older positions will feel oppressed by the progressive forces. Conversely when the conservative forces overwhelm the progressive ones those who were nearly freed by their actions will be exposed and have the oppression renewed.

Most people do not see things in these analytical terms. They respond with how they feel things should be. They have their own means of determining what is right and wrong derived from their social environment. Thus when they feel something is wrong they lash out at it. Often in emotional terms.

The first trick to engaging a dialog in such an environment is to want to. If the desire is to make a difference then you have to work with the tools you have available and within the expectations that are possible. Thus when dealing with someone that feels threatened by changing social values you have to find out what their reasons are. What motivates them. And then you have to try to address these issues.

You will not be succesful every time. Sometimes you have to step back and allow both sides to experience some more life till they can find a path through to each other. When faced with frustration do not dwell on it. That is the time to turn to the things you can find common ground on. Return to the difficult things later when minds have cleared and new ideas are possible.

People change given time. Give them the information and the time and they may be able to incorporate it into their world view.

[savannahana]

84. AZ & others posting here, many thanks for this thread (n/t)

[TWiley]

97. Well, If one party stops attempting to "SAVE" everyone else,

then dialog would come easier. It is maddening to try to have an intelligent conversation with someone who keeps quoting bible scritures and claims that "because gawd says so" is the only necessary proof for any argument.

Maybe the main problem is with the attitude of the "christians" who feel that everyone else in this world are more than poor ignorant sinners.

[OETKB]

110. This discussion is as old as time(at least 300 years anyway)

Thomas Paine sent a copy of the "Age of Reason," his treatise demonstrating the flaws of organized religion and its association to truth to Benjamin Franklin. I'm paraphrasing now. After reading Paine's work he wrote to him and praised his efforts, but quietly admonished him not to publish it. Old Ben realized that Mr. Paine would be vilified(which actually followed) if the "Age of Reason" was published. So nothing has changed on this subject and this problem remains with us.

You can not argue beliefs because they are just that. There is no requirement for soundness of what you say. It is just the musings of the human mind rolling over "what if" scenarios. At its best it can bring hope and comfort to the individual and at its worst brings conflict and violence among us. Desmond Tutu has stated that religion is neither good nor bad. It is neutral. It is what we do in the name of religion that gets judged.

To bridge the gap between belief systems we ought to pose our issues based on our beliefs and then offer solutions. What we believe stays in the background and is not introduced into the conversation. We should expect the same from the other side. The arguments then go back and forth based on experience and whatever knowledge we possess on the subject. Then in a democracy we take a vote. If it doesn't work out redress comes by revising the decision through the legal system or social action.

This is the framework IMHO to bring progress in representative government. Everyone's opinion on a problem gets aired but based on reason and what has or is occuring.