We need to have a big debate about religion. Not quiet it up. We need

[applegrove]

to take ownership of our Liberal intolerance of the devout or the religious who we have known. We have no right to be intolerant of people born with the ability to have faith.

Yes we can be angry at opportunistic leaders and politicization. Perhaps the idea that religion should be mixing with the state is a great fallacy that needs to be fought off. Activist religious leaders are at times very wrong. And at times do as good questions: abortion is not trite.

So we have some discussion to do. The only way to defeat the heinous psychopaths in the WH is to be really adult (to their adolescent followers) and know our own Liberal hypocrisies. We have to know ourselves and know our pettiness to fight them off. We need to deal with the whole religious issue. And we need guidance from the religious in our own movement... and not be taking guidance from the libertarians who have been kicked out of the Conservative Party and want a place to 'yack on' about their all-important lives and do not extend the same rights to others (the religious).

Saying that religious organizations should not have the same privileges as non-profits or non-governmental organizations if they follow the same criteria is just ignorant. Of course they should not pay taxes!

I say the ones bringing up this issue and 'framing it in religious intolerance' are trolls. Just trying to keep us DUers from learning about our own hypocrisy.

IMHO

[babylonsister]

1. I applaud you, applegrove. Great post!

Religion will not go away nor should it. But I'd be all for getting everyone to acknowledge that there should be a separation of church and state. It's becoming way too blurred imo.

Edit for boo-boos.

[Just Me]

13. Am I reading a different OP?

:shrug:

It seems to me that there an advocacy to become intolerant included in that OP. It appears there is a solicitation to confess and be intolerant.

[Toots]

22. I for one am intolerant

I have nothing against any religion. Whatever blows your skirt up, but I do very much dislike having it shoved in my face by anyone but especially our government..Religion is how some people cope with all the atrocities in the world especially the last five years or so. I think that is fine and wish them all the happiness possible. Please, please just keep your religion in your church and not on the streets or in our schools or courthouses.

[Just Me]

26. You choose NOT to tolerate others imposing their will/perception,...

,...on you.

Yes?

That is different from tolerating others' religious beliefs.

Yes?

:shrug:

[stillcool]

2. 'religious organizations' and their zeal to focus on ....

all things 'sinful' have created far more problems then they've solved. Every human being questions life, purpose,..what does it all mean. To allow each and every person to arrive at a place where they truly believe in 'anything' is freedom. Don't shove your god down my throat, and you won't have to defend yourself from my insistence that 'organized religion' breeds some of the sickest people i have ever met.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

8. Listen to what you just said...

"Don't shove your god down my throat, and you won't have to defend yourself from my insistence that 'organized religion' breeds some of the sickest people i have ever met."

The poster, and nearly every other Christian who posts on DU, doesn't attempt to "shove their god down your throat." I personally have never seen this happen -- although there by one in the quarter of a million daily posts on this website that does that. Yet you still end your post with the gratuitious dig that organized religion breeds "sick" people.

Ghandi?
Martin Luther King, Jr.?
Jimmy Carter?
Me?

If we're going to have a rational discussion about how progressives and liberal Christians can work together, both sides are going to have to hold their tongues. I promise you that I'll never even hint that you're less of a decent human being because you're not a Christian -- I won't even hint at it because I don't for a moment believe it's true. For your part, you have to be willing to treat Christians -- every Christian -- as a potential political ally. Unless they say or do something to prove otherwise.

Deal?

[stillcool]

48. i realised after posting....

that i am not one with a 'level-head' when it comes to the issue of religion. It is my own history, that i can not see past...but the lessons learned from that history leave me forever wary of anyone or anything purporting to have any answer but their own.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

51. Somebody a whole lot smarter than me...

once said, "Believe those who say they are seeking the truth. Doubt those who say they've found it."

I have a truth that works for me. It may not be the same truth that works for the person sitting next to me in the pew and it's almost certainly not the same truth that works for you. But I believe that there's a broad intersection, in a public and political sense, between your belief system and mine. The Christians that you hold in contempt are those whose belief system bears no resemblance to yours, yet they are constantly trying to force you to accept their truth as your own.

Your hostility toward them is entirely justifiable, and as a practicing Christian (and still hoping to get it right one of these days), I don't don't take any offense at all to flaming posts that condemn their behavior. I've been known to get pretty incendiary myself. The point here is that all of us, especially at DU, need to understand that those who we hold in contempt are making a mockery of their own faith (and mine). As much as Conservative Evangelicals may be the enemy, they represent a small minority of the whole community of faith in this country, and we'd do well to figure out how to work with the majority.

[applegrove]

70. well said. n/t

[Amy6627]

3. I whole heartily agree! When Air America first went on the air

I sent them information from LiberalsLikeChrist.org that supports your position. I think it would be very wise of them to have a segment once a day, week, whenever, with a credible Christian leader that can point out how wrong the "Right" have Christianity and back it up with scriptures. Maybe the head of the United Church of Christ, somebody that knows what they are talking about and is NOT insane!

I got this from http://liberalslikechrist.org/churchstate/index.htm

"Are you Jewish, Moslem, Hindu? God bless you! You may even be an atheist or an agnostic. That's fine, too; it matters not to "Liberals Like Christ". You don't have to be a "Christian" to relate to this website. If you are a Liberal who, like us, believes that every little girl or boy born into this world is entitled to a fair shake until the day they die, and especially if you despise what the so-called Christian "Religious Right" represents, then sister, or brother, you are about to learn how vulnerable this phony front of the Republican Party really is and how their undoing -- and that of the "Greedy Old Party" as well -- may come from a very surprising source!
Sadly, many non-Christian Liberals make the same mistake that Hitler's troops made in their Russian campaign. As those troops invaded Russia, they burned and pillaged every village they came upon on their way to Moscow, thereby making mortal enemies of millions of peasants and common laborers. If only they had only talked a little with these people, they would have learned that far from identifying with their communist dictators, most of these people hated Stalin and his Communist dictatorship, and would have welcomed and supported the German invaders as "liberators" and allies, if only this invading army had acted the part.
And so, our liberal friends, don't assume that all Christians are the enemy! Many of us detest the "Religious Right" even more than you do, because these fanatics are not only threatening our country, but our religion as well. Liberals need to recognize that there are Progressive Christians, and that such Christians can and should be among your most effective allies!
It is important to understand why you see and hear so much more about the Christian Right than the Christian Left. It is simply because the Right is allied with the wealthy Conservatives of the world, while the Christian Left is allied with the poor, the powerless and the downtrodden. While Liberals are concerned about ideas, and tend to fight amongst themselves over what they perceive to be the tiniest of "flaws" in the thinking of their friends as well as their foes, Conservatives don't let ideas get in the way of their concerns about preserving and enhancing the status of whites over "coloreds", males over females, straights over gays, long-time (mostly European) immigrants over recent or prospective immigrants, Christians over non-Christians, rich over poor, corporate over labor. Conservatives can and do work with anybody who can further their agenda ( including even Liberals on occasion ).
While Conservatives and their friends own most of the mass media of communications, all that is left for us Liberals are the crumbs of communication, including web sites like this one dependent mostly on word of mouth for circulation. We may never be heard, if Progressives like you don't help us get the word out, via the WWW, by word of mouth, by newsletters and the like".

[Az]

4. Its not just to find the discrepancies

Dialog increases understanding of one another's positions. It fills the center with understanding rather than creating a vacuous hole in our midst.

The thing is it must be civilized. But civility is difficult without trust. This is the adult aspect you are referring to. Everyone has to work on this. Its tempting to just lash out. But the dialog needs to be opened.

[eallen]

5. I mostly agree.

Your primary point is dead on: believing and non-believing liberals need to work together on political issues. I also agre that religious institutions should be treated like other non-profits.

That said, faith is irrational. That shouldn't matter for most political purposes. If we can construct a political dialogue based on shared ethical values that are at least expressed in secular fashion, then what difference does it make that some people believe in Yahweh, and some believe in the healing power of crystals?

[July]

6. Please explain further.

"We have no right to be intolerant of people born with the ability to have faith." Does this mean that people who do not have faith are "disabled"? You sound as if you are suggesting that "the ability to have faith" is a positive trait that some people lack. I would also question the idea that we are being "intolerant" of those who have the "ability" to have faith; some of us just disagree with religious belief. That's not intolerance, it's following our own consciences. And we DO have that right.

You talk about "our" pettiness, while I see much more coming from "them." I'm willing to hear what religious liberals have to say, but why do we need "guidance" from them? How about "guidance" from nonbelievers, too?

Why do you say, "of course" religious organizations should not pay taxes" (!)? There are some important issues to be addressed when tax-exempt churches try to influence elections or throw money at politicians. Please explain.

Real debate about religion is okay with me. Beginning with the assumption that all things religious are good is not.

And who are you calling hypocrites, anyway? There is a great deal of intolerance from the "love your neighbor" crowd toward those of us who don't share their views.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

21. The problem is that we're involved in a three-some

Which is a hell of an analogy for a Christian to bring up, if you ask me.

We have Secular Humanists (primarily liberals) on the one hand, and on the other we have Progressive Christians (who also tend toward liberalism, although not necessarily on every issue). These two groups ought to find common ground on most issues. For the Secular Humanists, providing for the needs of the poor and promoting social justice is good civics and common decency, and for Progressive Christians, its part of the Messianic command that we love our neighbors as ourselves.

The coalition is not perfect. On the issue of gay rights, many otherwise liberal churchmen oppose sanctioning gay marriage. Here in Cincinnati last fall, there was a successful campaign to remove an anti-gay ordinance from the City Charter. One of the those making television commercials against its repeal was the Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth, an associate of Dr. Martin Luther King and one of the young lions of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950's. I found it personally painful to see a man of the Rev. Shuttlesworth's stature and good nature taking such a stand, but that doesn't diminish my admiration for his career. We simply disagree on this issue and probably will do so indefinitely.

The simple fact is that Secular Humanists and Progressive Christians agree far more often than we disagree, and even when we don't see eye-to-eye on a particular issue, there is a reservoir of goodwill between us. We disagree as friends and as brothers.

Into this relationship comes a third party -- the Convervative Evangelicals (or whatever name you might wish to give them). They base their belief system on a rigid, primarily Old Testament view of the world. They are harsh to the point of fanaticism in their condemnation of any views other than their own. All other religions but their own are heretical, and only a select few will enter the kingdom of heaven.

Well-funded and well-coached, the Conservative Evangelical has become the "face" of Christianity in America. When a cable news program wants to get a "religious perspective" on a particular story, it invariably trots out Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, or some lesser evangelical to explain the position of the faith community. This is, of course, errant nonsense, assuming that the Christian community is monolithic in its belief system.

During the past twenty years, these zealous imbeciles have done untold damage to Christianity; a recent survey by the Pew Charitable Trust showed that the fastest-growing segment in the faith community was agnostic/atheist. This should come as no surprise. As I click (rapidly) through the religion channels on cable television, I can't help but find myself thinkg, "Christ Almighty, I hope I don't have to spend all eternity with jerks like these."

I know that's a terrible thing to think. But that's what forgiveness is for.

Secular humanists -- and especially those at DU -- need to understand that the Conservative Evangelicals do not speak for the faith community. Right Wing Christians are an embarrassment and an abomination, and they serve a useful purpose for the Republican Party because they are a "living wedge" between Secular Humanists and Progressive Christians.

We can deny them this victory. By reaching out to each other and understanding that we are natural allies, Progressive Christians and Secular Humanists constitute a majority in this country. We have to find a way to talk to each other and learn from each other.

[applegrove]

33. You are talking like all DUers accept the liberal Christians. they do not!

We are human or not. We are devout or some religion or not. Another perspective will teach us at times. At times we get to teach them about science.

Have you not seen one of these devout people walking around carrying ten people who have fallen through the cracks? Cause they do that you know. Liberals have other tools for that. Some people who call themselves Christians carry nothing but hate. How we going to sort it all out if we don't discuss.

We gotta know our own shit to properly discern and go after the shit we see in Repukes. They are adolescent and we beat that back by being super adults. Which means we face and deal with our issue. So we talk religious and liberal, liberal & religious. We have at times been the same thing. And we have been separate. We talk. So we can all really walk the walk.

We are both human (if one is a devout and has voted conservative and one is liberal and agnostic). That is what we have in common. We work from there. So that the USA is not rebuilt in the model of Karl Rove... a non-human hominid looking like person. Who will build a system (he may already have been promised to McCain) based on win, win winning where nothing but winning is valued and nothing human is.

That is why we talk about religion. To be stronger.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

52. I agree that we need to talk about religion...

It's when we all start shouting about religion that the trouble begins. I don't know if you were involved in the thread earlier this week -- the one that got locked (twice) for flaming, but we need to spend less time talking about where our philosophies intersect rather than screaming about how they're different.

[applegrove]

32. Ability to have faith is a human trait. Like being really strong or really

smart. You can do amazing things with it.. or you can follow without questioning and do bad things. To be human is to be human.

[ultraist]

79. I was wondering the same thing:

"people born with the ability to have faith" WTF?

To the OP:

We are outraged at the hate that some religions are spreading and injecting into our government. And rightly so.

Why the call to silence opposition to bigotry and oppression of women's rights?

That is un-American.

Just because someone or some org claims to be "religious" does NOT mean that our voices of opposition should be silenced.

Ability to not rely on religion or "faith" "is a human trait, like being really, really strong or really smart."

[kliljedahl]

7. Thanks for the link

I'd never heard of this group. As an agnostic I have a really hard time with Xtians. These seem like they might be semi-reasonable. I just finished Jim Wallis's book and was very impressed so I haven't given up completely. I'll check this site out more when I have some more time.


http://www.kliljedahl.net

[adwon]

9. Your signature

is hilarious

[XemaSab]

19. I'm an agnostic who recently

started going to church, mostly because EVERYONE in town goes to church.

I somehow lucked upon the most liberal church in town. We're talking WAY liberal. Two pastors: one's gay and the other one told everyone to go see fahreinheit 9-11 FROM THE PULPIT.

I've gained a whole new understanding and respect for Christianity. You don't really have to be a believer in the literal bodily resurrection of Christ, or in the virgin birth, or any of that nonsense. They're definitely believers in God, but my pastor loaned me a book about modern Christianity where the author concluded that all of the major faiths are a path to God, and Christianity just happens to be one of many paths.

The people at my church are very, very, very devoted to community service and not into all of the things people negatively associate with Christians, such as proselytizing, or being damn hypocrites. The church is full of people who got kicked out of the other churches in town for being gay or adopting interracially.

It's a face of Christianity I had never seen before.

So there are cool Christians out there, and there are more than you think, they just don't make a lot of fuss about things like the fundies do.

[kliljedahl]

20. & a Leonard Cohen fan too

Must be an old fart like me.

[XemaSab]

24. Nope, I'm 27

Just like older music.

Sorry to disappoint. :)

[kliljedahl]

25. Didn't disappoint

Just surprised, the man was a genius poet.


http://www.kliljedahl.net

[XemaSab]

27. Quite odd

but a genius.

[The Magistrate]

30. Your Signature Line, Mr. Kliljedahl, Is Marvelous

One for the ages, Sir!

[kliljedahl]

31. TYVM

As a relative Newbie I need all the reinforcement I can get.

[ultraist]

81. LOL!

A belated welcome! :hi:

[anitar1]

67. Thank You for the sign. Just the way I feel. n/t

[Heidi]

80. Another LC fan here . . .

And we're _not_ old farts!

[mitchtv]

89. well, one of the main things I have against liberal Xians is

you are right they don't make a fuss. They have sat quietly in the back of the bus and let the whackos take over the debate- virtually completely. The have let a fairly innocuous theology become a danger to our democracy.Like the Muslims we criticize for not speaking up. The Xians have abdicated their role as examples of what is Christlike. jesus used force to cast out the moneychangers. I advise them to do the sane STAND FOR SOMETHING ans take religion back from their Taliban bosses.What a bunch of wimps!

[Just Me]

10. Applegrove, when I have thoughts like that,...I tell them to PISS OFF!!

I am a liberal and I am committed to tolerance and a belief that, as a member of the only race I know, the human race,....we can reach out to anyone.

I find your perception of liberalism,...repulsive.

[applegrove]

34. Repulsive? Hmmm who the **** do you think is running all the orphanages

in the world? Could not separate a Liberal from their throne in the richest cities & countries in the world. Where more information (good information) empowers them and makes them stronger.

People spend their lives doing amazing things every day because they believe. Nothing wrong with that strength..the ability to believe in the life before you. And some of these there nutcakes.. start with a little bit of information..and spend their lives.. giving it all away. Like the ability to read. Do you do that?

No, no, no I do not believe anything that comes out of their books - except as history or a parable or a lesson in humanity. But whatever they are following.. some of them have strength in places you don't even know exits.

And that my friend... if it involves empathy or a transfer of knowledge or wealth or time...to the ones who have nothing... that reality, those lives, that them & their **** belongs under my tent!

Their 'bridge' to disseminating such strength and knowledge (feeding and teaching literacy) may come from a bible. Perhaps yours comes out of a bottle of chardonnay and your favourite profs ability to 'put it all together'. I can sit and discuss with you and agree. I know you and what makes you tick. I can also empathize with people who I know nothing about. They kick your ass and mine in certain departments. (perhaps not the African History Department.. perhaps only the department of feeding kids in subsistance agriculture Zaire - much less sexy but a department of humanity nonetheless).

[kypper]

11. A boon, if I may

"We have no right to be intolerant of people born with the ability to have faith."

Faith is not an ability; in fact it is often either an embodiment of ignorance, or misused as a synonym for trust.

One is not born with faith; one is TAUGHT faith.

[applegrove]

35. And who looks into the eyes of the ones who are addicted, starving,

parentless, poor, uneducated, desperate, haunted, unloved, alone, misused and says.. "in your future I will be there and you have one because you are alive and that makes you my brother or sister". What liberal does that? Many, many liberals. And many, many devout.

You are going to have to start a new party. The democrats for an empathetic way.. but only if it involves no commitment of time or heart from me.

I'm saying.. faith is a talent. So is intellect. It is all humanity. You either encourage it or you don't. I'm with the human beings: the tool-makers.

[kypper]

43. I still disagree

You're confusing faith with a combination of hope, optimism and compassion, all of which require not a shred of religion to be legitimate human emotions.

Faith is where people attribute all these wonderful things we possess ourselves, but cannot explain fully, and so must attribute it to mythology.

[applegrove]

44. You are feeling like that if someone has 'faith' that it diminishes you.

If I am shorter than you does it diminished you? It is just 'something else'. So is ethnicity, so is intellect or an Learning Disability (try out-acting Robert Deniro or out choreographing Martha Graham both of whom have verbal/dyslexic/apahsiatic issues with language).

We are not diminished by those who are different than us or have some ability we do not. And like any other human quality, our greatest strength is also our greatest weakness.

[kypper]

54. Again you are clutching a fallacy

Faith is not a talent, it is a crutch.
If my grandmother claims she got through her husband's death because of her faith, she is diminishing her own strength, as that is what allowed her to cope. Instead, she places that strength in the arms of the Catholic church, an organization that has told her she's essentially evil, but has always received its cash each Sunday.
I'm sorry, faith is learned, end of story.

[applegrove]

62. Faith is learned and it it inborn. It can be one or the other. And there

is nothing wrong with finding strength in a way that is different than how you do.

Again.. because someone does something different than you.. it does not deminish you.

[kypper]

68. Bullshit

It does diminish you to attribute your own strength to something else. Give yourself some goddamned self-respect.

The person who believes he's (or she) worthless because of addiction, but is clean because 'god saved him (her)', is demeaning his strength of will. It was a will to be clean; (s)he should take pride in their personal strength.

[applegrove]

69. Your way or the highway?

[ultraist]

85. Having "faith" as you define it, is NOT an ability.

Your constructs are so transparent.

[K-W]

12. Tolerance isnt developed by arguing.

And it isnt hypocrisy, but I dont expect you to understand that.

I think some stuff got aired out, but its time to respect the places where we have fundemental disagreements, not piss each other off hashing them out because you think you are right.

[Warpy]

14. Speak for yourself.

I have never expressed "liberal intolerance" or any intolerance of the devout. Recent data have suggested that belief or lack of it are hard wired into our brains. We are different, and neither is superior, and it's useless for one group to try to convert the other. It's just not going to happen.

I have upheld the tax free status of churches, although I do favor their paying taxes on their commercial property like apartment houses, strip malls, nursing homes, and hospitals (unless those facilities are run as nonprofits and perform charitable work in the community).

I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder in the fight for economic and social justice and environmental stewardship with believer friends.

However, their right to swing their fist ends where my skin begins. Just as you've ASSumed that all nonreligious people are intolerant of the religious, and you seem to find "the inability to have faith" to be some sort of defect, you've exposed your own intolerance, not anyone else's.

(and if you don't like abortion, then don't have one)

[applegrove]

37. I am pro-choice. But I think there is room for further effort as in

operations for little guys (reversible) and pills that men can take. I fear not asking men to invest their bodies in the whole reproductive cycle. I just don't think that someone who has 3 abortions should be treated with more respect than someone who has three babies out of wedlock and passes the children all on. All need help.

The goal should be the minimize the number of abortions. Abortion is not a good thing. I am for the morning after pill. I am for much investment in the science of men 'sharing' in the bodily invasions of reproductive health.

Very few people are really for an all out ban. Most just don't like the triteness of abortion on demand. Yes there is propaganda in their hearts if they are following certain leaderships. Up to us to get rid of our prejudices as a group.. discuss religion and suss it all out. And then we show each other the hypocrisies when we trust each other. The hypocrite of anti-abortionists is that every middle class and wealthy woman will find a plane to get on and get an abortion. That is something they cannot hide from. That the poor and desperate will be hurt and killed by anti-abortion law.

I am not afraid to open any door. As Liberals..we have nothing to hide. Nothing to be ashamed of.. except for perhaps the libertarian sect (that used to hide with conservatives and for some reason is hiding with us these days... I don't know about you but when blind civil libertarians started protected the right of child molesters.. I was not interested).

Bring it on. Nothing wrong with strong faith. Talk to me. Hypocrisies on both sides can be flushed out.

Why don't the little boys have to take care of their own sperm? What is up with that being a "god you do not touch or operate on en masse?". Can you say Norm! Can I please talk to the church leaders who are all male in some churches and we can get with that if we are so concerned about abortion? I want a chance at a discussion about that!

[Warpy]

59. First, look up the word "trite." You are misusing it

Second, I don't give a rip what you want. My rights are not negotiable.

[countryjake]

63. Maybe you should try & get rid of your prejudice against women...

who have had three abortions! Why exactly do you think they might need help? Take a little effort & begin figuring out why you feel the way you do, then we might begin a discussion on hypocrisies.

[applegrove]

71. Honey people who have three children and don't keep them get counselled!

Surely having a child is a 'better outcome'.

[countryjake]

72. If a woman doesn't want to go thru birth, why is having it...

surely a better outcome? Your prejudice is glaring!

[applegrove]

73. I am saying that there is nothing better than a baby. Am I wrong?

Is there something better in the world than a baby?

That aside... women who are not responsible need some counselling. Abortion is not birth control. Just like someone who doesn't take their diabetes medication properly needs some counselling...there are times when someone needs to be taught something.

Do you know that if I want to use my new sewing machine I have an hour long tape to watch, and a course I can take that comes with the machine for free?

Get real! A doctor will consel you if you cut your toenails wrong?

[countryjake]

74. Take home ec if ya want to learn how to sew; leave religion in church!

Lots of things are better in this world than babies, if you're a woman trying to survive in this unstable economy, struggling to become financially viable & independent...open your eyes...the odds are against that for most every single girl coming up now, even yet, today, & having control over her reproductive system is basic in her fight to succeed in life.

I don't consider any woman who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy an irresponsible person & I've yet to meet anyone who had an abortion that didn't also get some kind of counselling along with it.

I also don't believe in this pretend morality in which a pregnant woman who doesn't want to give birth is some shameful creature who should be made to feel guilty for her "unmotherly feelings" or even worse, forced into bearing an unwanted child. I long for the morality which treasures & relies on the inherent strength of all women, celebrates & respects the feminine wisdom, & trusts that every woman is competent to participate & contribute as an equal member of society.

And yes, you are wrong. A cognizant woman is "better", as you put it, than any blastocyst, embryo, or fetus that might be growing inside of her! A woman's worth is NOT based on her ability to multiply!

[mitchtv]

88. something better than a baby? yup

a baby who is actually wanted. Bigger crime than abortion? yup bringing an unwanted baby into this world

[BBradley]

94. You seem to have a very simplistic view of civil libertarians

They exist on both sides of the political fence... I'm sorry you hate us so much, but don't accuse us of being outcast conservatives. That's ignorance speaking.

[ultraist]

82. No, that study did not show "belief" is hard wired

That is a misinterpretation of the study that was started by fundies. They twisted the term to explain it in a literal sense.

The study showed the there are areas of the brain, including the pleasure centers, that make one susceptible to brain washing through rituals. THAT essentially is the "God gene" they are referring to. It doe not mean humans have a predisposition to believe in "God."

Furthermore, that is one study with no follow up studies, so at this point, it holds little validity.

[Cleita]

15. Why don't we just have a debate on the number of angels that

can fit on the head of a pin and be done with it? Religious debates really don't go anywhere because there isn't anything provable to debate.

If you want to debate intolerance, now that could be one that makes sense because it would not only cover religion, but race, gender, ethnicity and many other venues for tolerance as well as tax free exemptions. On the latter I would start with corporate welfare before I attack churches.

[_TJ_]

16. Here we go again people!

I think I'll sit this one out. I'm beat :D

[Just Me]

17. Your first four sentences are,...just plain weird. Would you kindly,...

explain?

"We need to have a big debate about religion. Not quiet it up. We need to take ownership of our Liberal intolerance of the devout or the religious who we have known. We have no right to be intolerant of people born with the ability to have faith.

Does that make sense? :shrug:

[applegrove]

38. Like these religious are lost and should not be bothered with for their

big delusions. It is a feeling that people go on - sometimes for a whole life. Like love.

The all look like delusion to a 'depressive' or 'someone who is sociopathic'.

We are more alike our religious friends than we want to admit. Not that we are all delusional.. but that we want to live in a world where our feelings are shared - and values based on those feelings lived by. We share the golden rule us humans: empathy.

And we should be on the same team. America was built of the right of religious expression and pursuit of happiness (however that is defined).

The ones who define happiness as 'what I can take away from somebody else's life' are the sociopaths.

We have nothing to fear from the real devouts. Just so long as we do not let ourselves be 'tribalized' ( the 'others' should have their happiness, rights, freedoms taken away). I say we open the doors and hash it out and let the truths we share bubble up. Perhaps that will make me an enemy of adolescent followers of Karl Rove everywhere... that is another sign I am on the right trail.

Who taught the USA that slavery was bad? Quakers, religious types, liberals. Civil rights? religious types, liberals.

Either you let the Karl Rove's of the world do the teaching (and the power-hungry televangelists who get monetary compensation for their tight connection to the right)... or you do something else.

Let us teach each other.

[Algomas]

18. I was surprised that the recent religion thread...

I was surprised that the recent religion thread was terminated. The debate was worthwhile. As an atheistic smart ass cynic, I learned quite a lot reading those posts. I for one would like to see this discussion continue. One point in particular made sense to me. If zealots are the minority among Xtians, why do the majority tolerate the perversion of their faith??
I know that my own dislike for all "organized" religion has been exacerbated by the rise of fundamentalism. I feel great pressure in the culture to keep silent in the face of Xtian intolerance. I personally know many very nice Xtians who voted for Bu$h because of religious pressure and it is a mystery to me that otherwise intelligent people can be so easily manipulated.
Discussions like this are important. If some thin-skinned people get their feelings hurt by the debate, so be it. I want to understand the appeal and power faith has for people. For example, I have had what I think of as mystic experiences but never connected them to faith. What exactly is the Xtian religious experience? Does Jesus really speak directly to them?
I don't get it, so please illuminate the darkness for me, my Xtian brothers and sisters.

[applegrove]

39. Oh and liberals like Ralph Nader will take money from Kool-aiders.

So do not say that it is only the religious who get tied up in knots. Human beings are the ones who are vulnerable to propaganda. The humans with feelings. So while you try and figure it out in them.. keep it close to your heart that the answers will have meaning in your life... "what makes me not want to join in 'wallyworld' and give up all that I hold dear for a chance at wealth or power". It could be the answer is as simple as you nor I nor the religious person are important enough to have money thrown at us. Perhaps that will be the fate of the leaders of politically necessary groups: Al Sharpton, etc.

So that we have not fallen pray to an American built in the image of an all winning god (instead of an all caring one)... how do we punch through to the truth?

There are things in common too. Not just the differences. There are people you will admire. People who will teach you about your own hypocrisy.

Yes - open the debate.

[BigMcLargehuge]

23. ugh... shoot me now

yes, the solution to our problems is to more tightly embrace more religion in the Democratic Party...

:eyes:

Better yet, rather than mollycoddling the fragile egoed "people born with the ability to have faith" why don't we all pray together and simply help the rethugs erase the separation clause from the Constitution. In fact, hey, let's just put them in charge of the whole enchillada since obviously they are far superior than we non-believers...

Better yet, let's embrace them ALL!

Bring in the Christian Identity movement too, fuck, their Christians, right? There must be a few thousand of them who will help tip the scales at the congressional election, right? We can reach them just as easily as we can reach the starry eyed adle brained fundamentalist sects, right?

[onager]

29. Oh, AMEN, Brother McLarge

And let's also embrace "mainstream" believers like good ol' George H.W. Bu$h. You know, the President of the United States who once opined that atheists could be neither citizens or patriots.

I spent 6 years in the Marines. My father was a highly decorated Army vet. The first land my white-trash family owned, AFAIK, was a land grant given to an ancestor for serving in the American Revolution.

Just imagine how it felt to have my alleged President declare me a non-citizen.

I've come to the point where the Bible-thumpers of whatever political persuasion can just basically FOAD. I certainly have respect for their right to hold a religious belief. That doesn't mean I have any respect for their beliefs per se, especially in the stuff like talking snakes, pregnant virgins, and zombie messiahs.

By the same token, it pains me not at all to see Jerry Falwell waddle off this mortal coil, and I'd prefer it happen sooner rather than later. At least 4 people I know personally died of AIDS, including 2 co-workers, and I'm a straight guy in a fairly conservative profession. I'll never forget Falwell's constant yammering that AIDS was "the judgment of Gawd."

Am I a Bad Person for wishing him dead? I can live with that. I don't believe in karma either. I've seen far too many total shits die peacefully in bed while innocents starved to death in the streets to believe in that moonshine.

You can call me a Mulholland Democrat. That's for Bob Mulholland, head of the California Democratic Party and a Vietnam combat vet.

Mulholland has some good advice that the Dems keep ignoring: "When people are shooting at you, you shoot back."

[applegrove]

45. No there is nothing wrong with how you feel about George Bush. That

is the point. You must be there to share these views with religious types. If we open a dialogue.

[applegrove]

40. Our shared humanity is another way of looking at it. Tolerance of

people who may be quite different than you. Accepting of our differences. All things the teachers of a 'tribal USA' do not want you to do.

Please, in these awful days, stay exactly the same as you were. Do not reach out. Skip the religious posts. Fine by me. But don't tell me I cannot ask and listen and be heard.

[BigMcLargehuge]

46. which differences is it alright for me to not accept?

Please, be so kind as to make me a list...

Racists? Homophobes? Women-beaters? How about murderers?... surely I should be accepting of all people here in homogeneous USA right?

Oh wait, all of those are traits that seem to fit the description of the modern Fundamentalist Christian.

The problem isn't me changing to be more accepting, the problem is misplaced and misdirected self righteousness with regard to the importance of religion to the political process on the Democratic side. I maintain, as I always have, that you can be as religious as you want, I don't politic in your church, don't preach in my fucking party. This insane belief that we have to draw in the growing number of educationally challenged (and by that I mean creationists and biblical literalists) to give us the numbers at the polls would be laughable if it wasn't accepted as gospel in the wake of the fundamentalist takeover of the rethuglican party.

They already have a party that suits that narrow minded and ignorant world view.

And, in keeping with acceptance... I guess the fundamentalists HAVE to accept atheists like me, break bread at our table, respect our differences of opinion... Right?

Except they don't.

This isn't college intro to American politics 101 this is war and we're losing. I don't believe in if you can't beat them join them. I never will.

[applegrove]

47. Anyone breaking the "golden rule" according to today present and

alive customary law. You cannot cherry pick humanity. It was written a long time ago and if you cut out slavery.. you have to allow for the rights of others.

I too have a problem with many fundamentalists. We are not talking fundamentalists. We are talking religion.

Also things we learn from 'away'. Like with Tibetan (Buddhist) culture kids are taught of the interconnectedness and that ego is an illusion so sociopathy is much rarer in Japan or China.

We ask question from all. We listen to all. We take notes. We question authority and tell them we can do that.

[BigMcLargehuge]

49. so the golden rule being -

do unto others as you would like them to do unto you...

I feel as if I am following the golden rule I am doing unto them that they apparently want done...

And lets not obfuscate the issue, it's not all religions... when was the last time you saw a group of Buddhists, Shintoists, Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, Hindu, Jain, etc... attempting to impose their belief system on the general populace in the USA, by legislative and executive force? Where are my 10 muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist TV networks? Where are my TV preachers soliciting money to build a new Ashram?

As I said before, I don't care what someone believes provided they leave it outside when discussing politics. I don't give two shits what brings you to the Democratic party, if you believe in the rights of humanity, fine, if you are here because you feel it will earn you points on your getting into heaven score card, whatever. The end justifies the means if we all work together for democratic goals. But using the party as a recruitment center for your church, or the party actively becoming a church to draw new voters is not the way to maintain a strong party committed to fair wages, social programs, and national health care.

[applegrove]

50. The Hindu & Muslim networks come in by satellite. And they can

preach customary law too. So you hash out what it means with whoever the religious one happens to be. Do you think Muslims in the USA do not have the same agenda as they do in Europe or Canada? They have been silenced by the terrorism.. but for sure there are laws and things they want done. Schools, marriage laws, etc.

So you look at it like it is religion. You give special treatment to nobody. Religious assholes whose ancestors were from the Indian subcontinent somewhere..dropped a plane carrying 250 canadians out of the sky over Ireland 20 years ago. Tribalism is real. Tribalism is Karl Rove's tool. We need to talk 'tribalism' with our religious friends and neighbours.

You do not fight it with more tribalism. You fight it with discernment and laws that allow for as much religious freedom as possible.. while keeping the secular option open and strong for all. And you start the discussion with the religious today. So that we can all have a say it what it is and what the democratic position will be.

We have to get busy.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

53. This is war and we're losing...

Precisely.

And right next to you is a Christian willing to fight on your side. But when we hear the words "don't preach in my fucking party," we are understandably less-than-eager to embrace you as our ally. When I hear you use the term "educationally challenged" to describe me and others like me, and when I hear the words "narrow-minded and ignorant" to describe my world view, you might possibly understand why you're losing this war.

Eighty percent of Americans express some type of religious faith, but only about twenty percent of them self-identify as being conservative. While it may be emotionally satisfying to lash out like that, consider that you're insulting 60% of the American people. Even in my educationally challenged state, I learned enough math to know a majority when I see one.

Remember that during World War II, President Roosevelt was able to embrace Joe Stalin as his ally -- at least until their common enemy was defeated. Nobody expects you to get religion and nobody expects the Democratic Party to promote any particular religious doctrine. But as long as we're fighting on the same side, would it be to much to ask that I not be continually insulted?

This is a war and we're losing...

Perhaps we should stop shooting at each other.

[BigMcLargehuge]

55. Like I maintained in the other posts in this subthread...

I don't care what you believe, I really don't. But I can't sit by and watch the party shift right precisely to bring in more people of a specific belief system, tailor the message to meet with the approval of their belief system, and unquestioningly revere that belief system.

Right, this is war, and to continue the analogy, if we're in the same trench together, side by side, and you lean over and tell me how fucking great your god is...

I'll shoot you myself.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

58. Bang! You're Dead!

Reread my post. Reread it slowly.

Did I ask you to "unquestioningly revere" my belief system? Did I tell you how "fucking great" my god is? No. I simply suggested that if we're going to be on the same side, you might consider refraining from insulting me at every opportunity.

And shift the party to the right? Say what?!

"Inasmuch as you do unto the least of my children," Jesus said, "so you have done unto me." We have Democrats in Congress who sided with credit card companies against people who are stuggling financially. We have Democrats in Congress who turn a blind eye to the sick and the dying because universal health care doesn't have good poll numbers. We have Democrats in Congress willing to break faith with our senior citizens on Social Security because they're too timid to oppose George W. Bush. Shift the party to the right? I don't think so.

Let me say this as clearly as I can: Progressive Values are Christian Values, but a obnoxious group who pretend to be Christian has you (and a host of others) thinking otherwise.

I live in Ohio, but let's say that I came up to your house wearing a Boston Bruins jersey and talking about a "wicked pissah" and trashed your front lawn. You'd be really, really pissed off at some guy from Boston when in fact it was a guy from Ohio who did the deed. These faux Christians are doing the same thing, and secular progressives need to get past this.

I'm not going to go into the theological reasons who nobody can "jam a religion down your throat" because I don't want to waste your time with how fucking great my god is. But suffice to say that nobody can force you to be a Christian anymore than they can force you to stop loving your spouse. Faith doesn't work that way.

[ultraist]

84. Well said Bro McLarge!

I have no interest in supporting an institution that is anti Gay and anti women's rights (ie the Catholic church and many organized religions).

FYI: Tolerance has become a fundie code word for put up and shut up while we spread our hate messages and inject our religious beliefs into your laws.

[amazona]

28. what a waste of time

Liberals are not intolerant of the religious. Many liberals are among the religious. However, we are all of us obligated to be intolerant of hate, and to me this includes calling out the extremists sects in any religion, including Christian or Islam extremist sects, that would deny freedom to women or any other large group of humans. Liberals have been tolerant of too much. We put up with people who would exterminate us in an instant. It's time to for us to hold up the Randall Terrys of the world to the contempt and intolerance they richly deserve. All ideas are not equal, and all religious beliefs are not equal. Any religion that promotes hatred of women or the now-fashionable hatred of gays is a religion that should be held up high to public scorn and not tolerated in any way, shape, or form.

When you can show me any actual evidence of liberals being intolerant of the religious, get back to me. The liberals I know are the only ones who do tolerate pagans, Buddhists, free-thinkers, peyote chewers, crystal worshippers, Christians, Muslims, and the full range of religious expression. It is the conservatives who only tolerate those who happen to worship in the same branch of the same church.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[applegrove]

41. We are not perfect. But we are good human beings. That is what we

need to share and 'elevate' within ourselves and within the people we reach out to.

What does it mean to be empathetic?

[Solon]

36. You look for hypocrisy where little exists...

yes there are assholic Atheists, along with Assholic Religious people on both sides of the political spectrum. However, by and large, I have not seen intolerance of so much religiousity but of stupidity. On the left, we prefer facts and evidence to consider whether a position is worthwhile. If an Atheist calls me irrational for believing in my Gods, I'm irrational to them, so fucking what. They are stating a belief, just like I did in this case. However, if I said that MY version of the creation story(Note: I don't really have one) should be taught as science in a science classroom then I would be rightfully slammed as stupid, for that particular position. We are intolerant of stupidity, and there is no shame, nor hypocrisy in that. No atheist on this board has advocated the outlawing of religious practices in our homes, churches, and temples. That is good enough for me to be on the same side as them.

[applegrove]

42. That is how you get through the day - on good, new, intense information.

What of someone who will use all that when it is necessary.. but wants to get through the day on some shared and ordered consciousness. What of someone who wants to be of a flock. What of someone who wants to feel themselves carried. Who wants to challenge themselves every day against not themselves.. but against a god or an icon from another time.

What about their days. I'm not telling you to give into intolerance. I'm saying discuss your "days". Discuss the present leadership in the USA. Do they bond over the gay issue? Or do they bond over love? How do you bond with your posse? Is it love or hate?

[applegrove]

61. So we are perfect? I am not advocating religious schooling in public

schools.. but if we do not do that you end up with kids who go to religious school. And then what happens? They don't get taught anything but religion. They learn nothing about STDs.

I had an ancient history class. And one day they allowed creationists in to talk to us about the Bible. That was a long time ago. Now I would imagine that you would have many more than just the Christian view in for a period.

I don't think we need to stick our heads in the sand when it comes to the work the fundamentalists are up to. They purposely target kids shows so that they are not liberal and introducing a single homosexual character in one show, one day out of a run of 100 shows. Now they are at the universities.

It is a problem and I for one want to be very close and have a great understanding of the Xtians who don't take one chapter of the bible literally. They have the ability to accept a creation myth into their hearts. They have a belief system I am incapable of. It is a reality. I want these people who have done nothing to me... under my tent.


So I will listen. And I will look into my own heart and laugh at my pre-conceived ideas on the religious. And I will know more.

[mitchtv]

90. after 11&1/2 years of Catholic school

I never had to open a book in public school. It had all been coverd. superio education, not all religion 1 hr a day. Biology included Darwin

[Bridget Burke]

56. So--all Liberals are religion-haters?

Some in this thread have had a hard time deciphering your prolix prose. Checking out your posts on other topics supplies a context.

No, thanks.

[applegrove]

64. I did not say that. I happen to think that a more tribal USA is a bad

USA. Tribalism is defeated by the plurality of democracies. Which is why when George W Bush wants to defeat the tribal Islamist Arab Fundies in the Middle East he (& his gang) jump on the democracy band-wagon.

Where George Bush & his cabal want to defeat democracy (as in the Democratic Party & representative government to form a single party state) they institute tribalism in the USA.

I come from the position where in order to defeat 'encouraged or created tribalism' we need to be more open and empathetic with all groups in America. Including the groups we have ignored or marginalized ourselves.

I just think that encouraging increasing tribalism & not fight the Repuke machine on that.. is sticking our heads in the sand.

[sniffa]

57. sorry

i readiLy admit to my intoLerance of the devout. i pity them Like the mentaLLy retarded.

but, they are free to practice and beLieve anything they wish.

i don't care untiL they enter my Life - that's when they either adjust or get the fuck out of it.

[applegrove]

60. So you can skip the discussion. Those of us who want to build

bridges so that the USA does not end up as tribalist as the conservatives want it to be.. we can build bridges.

[Behind the Aegis]

65. I feel your premise is a little off.

I do not see "liberal intolerance" of the devout or religious. There are a few here who might be rude. But, I feel what many are intolerant of is the devout or religious expecting all others to adhere to THEIR faith. I have no issue if you are religious, but if you use your religion as the basis to deny my or my loved ones equal rights, then I have an issue.

"Saying that religious organizations should not have the same privileges as non-profits or non-governmental organizations if they follow the same criteria is just ignorant. Of course they should not pay taxes!" Religious organizations SHOULD NOT have the same privileges as other non-profits IF they are promoting a POLITICAL agenda. To not tax them is allowing them to do something no other non-profit is allowed to do.

I feel the real hypocrisy is when others expect their religion trumps the rights of others.

[applegrove]

66. I was responding to the person who said that religions should not

get away without paying taxes. I simply pointed out that all kinds of groups do not pay taxes.

That was my point.

Sorry - I do seem to be not the clearest writer.

[Jamastiene]

75. One minute admitting a point someone else makes is good

The next trying to "win" the debate by saying there is "intolerance" where there is really just pain. Tsk Tsk. You won't build bridges with the tone of your original post in this thread. Might want to try framing the statements with remarks that are a little less accusatory.

[yurbud]

76. don't patronize the religious--but do point out shared values

You aren't doing them or us any favors by adopting the loud, public, and ultimately empty public peity of the right, and you would be doing harm to adopt their irrationality.

[yurbud]

77. Right wingers consider liberal christians as bad as atheists

[yurbud]

78. a problem with religion in public (or any) discourse

Western religion is based on supernatural revelation accepted by faith, which creates a couple of problems.

1). You can't argue about it with them. Evidence is irrelevant to something accepted by faith, and in some traditions, it borders on blasphemy to even try to figure out practical arguments divine commandments.

Making matters worse, some claim to get direct revelation from God. How do we contest that without calling that person a liar? Or how do we weight that guys revelation against someone else's?

2. Since it's a revelation from God, it's a sin to compromise. While politicians can come to a semantic compromise like calling gay marriages civil unions, devoutly religious people can't even go that far.


We need to do what the GOP does in this sense: instead of pandering and sticking our finger in the wind, and trying to figure out how to win over a lynch mob of retards, we need to decide what we stand for, say it simply, clearly, and often, and fight for those values at every opportunity.

This DLC shit gets tiresome.

[OETKB]

83. Huh

There is no arguing beliefs. They are made up in the human mind to deal with what we do not know. If an organized belief system, such as religion, is being discussed, that belongs in a philosophy session, not in the political realm. Government through its various branches is dealing with the wrongs of societal living and trying to ensure appropriate survival of all its participants. This is not the role of religion or any spiritual thoughts. The latter is there at the intense times of people's lives to get them through it. It makes no binding decisions, but is solely dependent on the devotion of its followers. On the other hand, government makes laws that all citizens must obey. This process is much more complicated and needs orderly arguments based both on knowledge and experience.

From the beginning the framers of the constitution saw major problems with the "divine right of Kings." They no longer wanted to be hamstrung with a narrowly focused view of the world. In its formulation the separation of church and state protects both those who find spiritual hope in their religions as well as helping to assure that no belief system dominates the Republic.

Therefore the important discussion is not about religion, but the importance of separation of church and state. Without it one can not support a diverse society. Without it the meaning of civil law is diluted. The choices are chaos, dictatorship, or representative government. Let the debate begin.

[ultraist]

86. We have no right to be intolerant of people born with the ability to THINK

[Swamp Rat]

87. ... more proselytising... HAHA! You will never get me!

:D I'm too liberal.

Praise Dionysus!

[Bluebear]

91. Liberal intolerance of the devout vs the Devout's intolerance of Liberals

Now there's a ratio for which I would like to see the numbers.

[Catt03]

92. Strongly disagree

"Saying that religious organizations should not have the same privileges as non-profits or non-governmental organizations if they follow the same criteria is just ignorant. Of course they should not pay taxes!"

Religious organizations should not have the same privileges as non profits.

The founders knew the slippery slope of power and religion and perhaps, that is why they wrote the 1st, 2nd and 3rd amendments.

Now is you want dialog to find a middle ground between fanatics and spiritual citizens, then I may be open

[BBradley]

93. You guys keep going with your circle jerk, then.

[Moderator]

95. Locking

This discussion has outlived its usefulness.