The "conspiracy theory debunker" community's surprising non-attention to bigotry against atheists

[Diane_nyc]

One thing I've noticed that has struck me as very strange.

Most "conspiracy theory debunkers" have paid surprisingly little attention to the one very popular "conspiracy theory" which most specifically (though often just implicitly) targets most of them.

The "conspiracy theory debunker" movement overlaps heavily with the organized "Skeptic" movement which centers around organizations like CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Claims of the Paranormal), publications like the Skeptical Inquirer, and websites like JREF. The organized "Skeptic" movement, in turn, overlaps heavily with the organized atheist/humanist movement. (For example, Paul Kurtz is a leading figure in both the organized "Skeptic" movement and the organized atheist/humanist movement.)

More generally, I've noticed that the majority of "conspiracy theory debunkers" seem to be atheists.

That being the case, why aren't more "conspiracy theory debunkers" more up-in-arms about the one very popular "conspiracy theory" which is to atheists as Protocols of the Elders of Zion is to Jews?

I mean the one which claims that the world is secretly ruled by a late-1700's Bavarian underground group of mostly atheists (who, at that time, needed to organize secretly because they were persecuted).

I mean the "Illuminati conspiracy theory," which I will refer to henceforth by its late 1700's name, "anti-Illuminism."

It seems to me that atheists should consider anti-Illluminism to be very, very scary. Why aren't more of them scared? Why isn't there more concern about anti-Illuminism in the JREF forum? (Here's http://forums.randi.org/tags/index.php/illuminati/">the list of "Illuminati" threads on JREF - they don't seem to be very frequent, and hardly any serious debunking goes into them.) Why aren't there a whole bunch of websites out there targeting and refuting anti-Illuminist claims in detail? In my opinion, there should be.

Of course, anti-Illuminism doesn't target just atheists. It also targets "Satanists," occultists, Pagans, Freemasons, feminists, and gays, among others. Some variants target Jews as well. However, the historical Bavarian Illuminati were mostly atheists. Thus, atheists should be regarded as the central target of anti-Illuminism, at least implicitly if not explicitly.

The historical Bavarian Illuminati also championed various ideals, such as the separation of church and state, which most of us today would regard as axiomatic to modern Western civilization. So, anti-Illuminism should be a matter of concern to anyone who values modern secular society.

Why aren't atheists more worried? Perhaps because, despite all the public disrespect they've gotten during the past few decades, atheists, like Jews, tend to be overrepresented in academia and in high-paid professions. No doubt this makes many atheists feel secure, kind of like the way many German Jews felt back in the early 1900's. Of course, the U.S.A. has a much more stable government than Weimar Germany had, so we're probably not headed for anything quite as bad as a Christian theocratic equivalent of Nazi Germany. Still, to whatever extent bigotry against Jews is still a real live problem, all the more so is bigotry against atheists, at least here in the U.S.A. At the very least, bigotry against atheists is considered much more respectable by many.

Not only atheists but also progressives, of whatever religion or cosmological worldview, should be concerned about the popularity of anti-Illuminism these days. It is a means by which the religious right wing has extended its influence into otherwise unrelated political movements, such as the anti-war movement, and into the very heart of the Democratic Party's base.

For example, anti-Illuminism has gotten popularized in the African-American community via various hip hop bands. (Google "hip hop lyrics Illuminati.")

And, at almost any anti-war rally, you will likely run into people talking about "the Illuminati." For the most part, the leaders don't talk about "the Illuminati" (probably because most anti-war rallies, at least here in New York, are organized by Communists). However, a great many rank-and-file rally attendees do believe in "the Illuminati."

Among atheists and among progressives, the usual reaction to anti-Illuminism seems to be to regard it as a joke. (See, for example, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6177921">this recent joke thread about the Illuminati in the GD forum here on DU.) While there's nothing wrong with such humor as an in-joke, it should not be relied upon as the way to oppose anti-Illuminism. To the many people who believe in "the Illuminati," anti-populist ridicule will just come across as elitist, classist, and authoritarian.

What's needed, instead, is a patient, in-depth, and multi-faceted educational effort. Otherwise, in my opinion, many progressive political movements are in danger of being subverted by the religious right wing.

Also, in my opinion, the way to oppose anti-Illuminism is not via an overly broad attack on "conspiracy theory." The latter, too, will likely just put people on the defensive and not accomplish anything.

It is relevant and legitimate to oppose what has been called "the conspiracy theory of history," i.e. the view all (or most) major world events have been controlled and micromanaged, over a long period of time, by just one unified, hidden elite group of people. It is also relevant and legitimate to encourage skepticism toward what the 1997 sci.skeptic FAQ called "grand conspiracy theories," i.e. theories involving extraordinarily large conspiracies - but without overstating the case on this matter. (See my posts http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=216184">40. sci.skeptic FAQ (1997): 08: What is a "conspiracy theory"? and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=217222">65. Government secrets and the "size of conspiracy" argument in the thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=215928">The multiple meanings of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracism" - highly ambiguous and loaded terms.)

However, by no means do all so-called "conspiracy theories" imply either a "conspiracy theory of history" or an extraordinarily large number of conspirators. An overly broad attack on "conspiracy theory" comes across as forbidding people to think for themselves about possible government wrongdoing.

Later in this current thread, I'll dig up and comment on some other "Illuminati" threads here on DU, and perhaps a few JREF threads too.

[Diane_nyc]

1. A few "Illuminati" threads on JREF

As promised in the O.P., I'll now comment on some of the http://forums.randi.org/tags/index.php/illuminati/">"Illuminati" threads on JREF.

So far, the only thread I've found that's at all informative is http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63929">Illuminate me. It contains a fair amount of interesting historical info on various "Illuminati"-related topics.

Now for a couple of more recent JREF threads, which aren't particularly informative but contain a few points of interest:

The most recent thread, http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115448">There are 6,000 people in the Illuminati begins with a post saying:

I'm not a big believer in conspiracy theories, but I'm pretty convinced that the vast majority people in the world are made to dance to the tune of a tiny group of rich and powerful people. It doesn't really matter what this small group is called. The Illuminati is as good a name as any other. In a book called Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making, David Rothkopf asserts that the world is effectively ruled by 6,000 people. I'm quite happy to equate Rothkopf's 6,000 with the Illuminati.

I thought this worth quoting, because I've encountered similar arguments elsewhere. My response to such arguments:

"Illuminati" isn't "as good a name as any other" for the ruling class. You wouldn't call the ruling class "the Elders of Zion," would you? For similar reasons, they should not be called "the Illuminati." If you call them "the Illuminati," you are implicitly, even if unintentionally, endorsing a religious right wing meme about the world being controlled by evil atheists, "Satanists," occultists, Pagans, etc.

The remainder of the post contains some legitimate gripes about the greed of the ruling class, but also seems to exaggerate their power somewhat.

Another fairly recent JREF thread is http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112853">Leo Zagami - Illuminati Whistleblower. The O.P. mentions that Zagami has been accused of being a disinfo agent. Further down in the thread, http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3674696#post3674696">gtc proclaims, "Greg Symanski is not disinfo, there is no such thing and you have absolutely no evidence to support your ridiculous claim." Further down, http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3675037#post3675037">Liszt replies to gtc as follows:

Greg Symanski is not disinfo, there is no such thing and you have absolutely no evidence to support your ridiculous claim.

Not true. UFOlogist William Moore admitted to a journalist that his UFO stuff was made up, and he got the crap for his books from the military.

Why? It would seem that the military would rather have people believing in UFOs then knowing about things like the Stealth Fighter. And Mr Moore wanted to sell his books.

Apparently, there was a fistfight involving Moore at a UFO convention after this came out, which would have been rather entertaining to watch.

Sadly, I do not have the source to hand - I read it many years ago. (might not even be true, but it sounds plausible)

Anyhow, this thread, like most of the other "Illuminati" threads I've seen on JREF so far, contains no serious debunking of "Illuminati" claims per se, other than a brief mention that "The Illuminati has not existed for hundreds of years and was not at all important, even when they did exist."

[Diane_nyc]

2. Old DU thread about the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798

As promised in the O.P.:

The most interesting "Illuminati" thread I've come across here on DU, so far, is http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1078628">Alien and Sedition Acts, Bavarian Illuminati, and lessons for today, from back in 2004.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1078628">starroute wrote:

The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 are occasionally mentioned here at DU as an early forerunner of the Patriot Act. But I only just discovered that one of the major causes of those acts was fear of the Bavarian Illuminati. Not only is this interesting in itself -- as one more proof that history is far nutsier than the history books generally let on -- but it makes the parallels with today's al-Quaeda panic even stronger.

This is followed by quotes from a variety of sources including:

• http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/6095/articles/froomkin-metaphor/partIVA.html">The Metaphor is the Key: Cryptography, the Clipper Chip, and the Constitution by A. Michael Froomkin, on a website at M.I.T.


• http://www.epwijnants-lectures.com/ct_robison_john.html">a non-working link which I'll try to find on the Internet Archive site later. (The Internet Archive site isn't working now, either.)


• http://post.queensu.ca/~smithgs/275nativism.html">Nativism by Geoffrey S. Smith, part of a history course titled "Conspiracy and Dissent in 20th c. America," taught at f Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario (Canada)

[seemslikeadream]

3. If there is one thing I can say for sure starroute is one of my top 10 posters at DU

The BEST of the best

[Grateful for Hope]

10. Yes, but, I would say, ONE of the best of the best

You are of this "genre", IMO, SLaD, as is Kpete, Octafish, Reprehensor, and a few other very valuable DU members.

I salute you all.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. I'll put it on my To Do list.

I warn you, though. It's going to be about 150 items below firing up the Observatory and traveling to the center of the universe to finally rescue Princess Peach (again) from Bowser.

What is it with those two? Maybe they get together and plot monumental timewasters for Mario. They then can conduct a passionate love affair while he's busy racing Boo and dodging cannons. That explains why she's being "held captive" and yet still can send Mario 5 1-Up Mushrooms every once in a while. Who lets their prisoner send mushrooms in the mail all the time??? It's a conspiracy, I tells ya!

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Also, are we a "community"? n/t

[Diane_nyc]

8. Maybe "community" isn't quite the right word, but certainly a network at least. nt

[Grateful for Hope]

7. This post is saying quite a lot

and, you are touching on some questions I have had.

It's late, so I am going to take some time tomorrow AM to really read what you have presented, and, will respond.

I appreciate the work you have put into this thread, Diane.

[hack89]

9. As an atheist, I can honestly say

that I have never given a second of thought to anti-Illuminism - nor do I intend to. I have so far lived a full and productive life openly as an atheist with no problems what so ever.

You need to step away from the internet for a while - just like the 911 truth movement, anti-Illuminism involves a tiny fraction of the internet. The idea that it resonates with the general population is ridiculous.

[Diane_nyc]

11. Some important clarifications. Why I see this as a real problem.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217402">hack89 wrote:

I have so far lived a full and productive life openly as an atheist with no problems what so ever.

Good for you. Do you know anyone who lives in the Bible Belt?

... anti-Illuminism involves a tiny fraction of the internet.

It also seems to involve a much larger fraction of people (though still a minority) in real life. Have you ever been to an anti-war rally, for example?

Organized political movements, such as the anti-war movement, do play an important role in politics. Hence, to the extent that the religious right wing is infiltrating such movements, that's very bad news for the Democratic Party. While the leadership of the antiwar movement remains solidly progressive for the most part, the rank and file are another story, at least here in New York. I would imagine that the same is even more true elsewhere, though I could be wrong.

The idea that it resonates with the general population is ridiculous.

I didn't say that it resonates with the general population. However, from what I can tell so far, it apparently does resonate with lots of poor people, including lots of poor black people. In other words, the heart of the Democratic Party's base.

[hack89]

12. I think you have an overly active imagination

the internet amplifies and adds importance and urgency to everything - whether important or insignificant. This is insignificant. You need to get out in the real world.

[Diane_nyc]

13. Real world vs. Internet

Please re-read what I wrote http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217404">here. My concerns are based primarily on my experiences in the real world (and primarily at anti-war rallies), not the Internet.

On edit: I guess you must not talk to poor people very much?

On edit: My concerns are also based on my knowledge of the history of the religious right wing. More about that in another post.

[seemslikeadream]

14. Well here's another thing I know for sure

Some folks at DU love to tell people that there is only one version of reality in the universe and it is theirs' They mistake the dungeon for a cave

[Diane_nyc]

16. How familiar are you with the religious right wing and its history?

I assumed that everyone here knew that the religious right wing is dangerous.

But, maybe, not everyone here realizes this.

Lots of sophisticated urbanites have had trouble believing that the religious right wing could possibly ever manage to accomplish anything at all. In real life, I've run into quite a few people who have assumed it was just a fluke whenever the religious right wing won a victory. Then, whenever the religious right wing suffered a defeat, or even when it just stopped making front page news for a few months, a lot of people assumed it must be dead. Far from it. The religious right wing has had many ups and downs over the past several decades.

Also, a lot of folks here may not be familiar with the evangelical Christian subculture, especially its more fanatical branches such as the Pentecostal movement.

As a result, some folks here may not be aware of the role that anti-Illuminism has played, both within the evangelical Christian subculture and within the religious right wing. To such people, I would strongly recommend a look at some of the more hardcore religious right wing propaganda, such as The New World Order by Pat Robertson, a televangelist who had had lots and lots of fans. (Back in the 1980's, Robertson ran unsuccessfully for President. He then led what for a while was the largest religious right wing organization, the Christian Coalition.)

To sophisticated urbanites, televangelists like Pat Robertson look like buffoons, hard to take seriously at all. But they can indeed become politically powerful.

These past few years, the religious right wing has not been doing well in terms of electoral politics. However, it should not be assumed that the religious right wing is dead. It seems to be mutating in various ways.

And some aspects of its ideology have popped up in places where I least expected to run into it, such as antiwar rallies. There has been quite a bit of Alex-Jones-ification amongst people one might otherwise expect to be progressive.

Then again, that shouldn't really be too surprising. The antiwar movement has had a right wing sector for many years.

[Diane_nyc]

17. P.S.: If you don't believe me, read what Chip Berlet says on some of these matters....

I certainly don't agree with everything Chip Berlet has to say. (For some of my disagreements, see my posts http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=215932">Chip Berlet and "conspiracism" and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=215960">Berlet's article "ZOG Ate My Brains" in the thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=215928">The multiple meanings of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracism" - highly ambiguous and loaded terms.)

However, Berlet makes some of the same points I've been making about the infiltration of otherwise progressive movements by right wingers, and by right wing ideologies. See http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9_TOC.html">Right Woos Left, on Berlet's "Public Eye" website. (His emphasis, though, is more on Larouchites than on the religious right wing or on people like Alex Jones. Then again, Berlet's "Right Woos Left" was written quite a while ago and is therefore a bit out-of-date.)

Berlet's website also has interesting articles on http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/masons.html">The Illuminati Freemason Conspiracy and on the http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/jbs.html">John Birch Society, a very influential extreme right wing group that has been around since the late 1950's, and which has promoted anti-Illuminism. (By "very influential," I mean that the John Birch Society's ideology had a strong influence on subsequent and more popular religious right wing leaders such as Pat Robertson.)

More later about the religious right wing and the historical role of anti-Illuminism within the evangelical Christian subculture.

[Diane_nyc]

18. Further P.S.: Some relevant evangelical Christian history

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217402">Here, hack89 voiced the utterly uninformed opinion that anti-Illuminism "involves" only "a tiny fraction of the internet" (not real life) and, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217405">in a subsequent post, that it has been "amplified" by the Internet.

Evidently, hack89 knows very little about the evangelical Christian subculture, especially the more fanatical branches thereof.

I first encountered anti-Illuminism back in the 1970's, in a book called The Satan Seller by Mike Warnke, which, for a while, was a best-seller among evangelical Christians. Warnke claimed to be a former "Satanic High Priest" of a coven that supposedly answered to the Illuminati. The book was full of tall tales and was eventually debunked in 1992 by other evangelical Christians. (See http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss098/warnke_index.htm">The Cornerstone series on Mike Warnke.) In the meantime, Mike Warnke's book was one of a bunch of factors that helped to launch the "Satanic Ritual Abuse" scare of the 1980's.

Although Mike Warnke lost a lot of his following in the early-to-mid 1990's, anti-Illuminism remained very much a part of the more fanatical parts of the hardcore evangelical Christian subculture (especially among Pentecostals and such) and the religious right wing. As I mentioned earlier, it's featured in Pat Robertson's book The New World Order, from which Alex Jones apparently derives a lot of his ideology.

Another leading anti-Illuminist is Tim LaHaye, one of the founders of the Moral Majority in the 1970’s and, more recently, author of the best-selling Left Behind series.

So, anti-Illuminism is not a new thing, and certainly not just (or primarily) an Internet thing. What is new is that it's now starting to influence a lot of people who are not otherwise part of either the religious right wing scene or the hardcore evangelical Christian scene. That is the new and (to me) scary development.

[Diane_nyc]

19. More about Mike Warnke and the evangelical Christian subculture

In my post above I mentioned Mike Warnke, as part of my brief history of anti-Illuminism within the evangelical Christian scene these past several decades. I just now came across an article in http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss098/warnke_response/skeptical.htm">the Skeptical Inquirer about the debunking of his claims back in 1992, and about the "Satanic Ritual Abuse" scare of the 1980's and 1990's. This article also makes some important general sociological points about the evangelical Christian subculture:

Born-again, evangelical, and fundamentalist Christians undoubtedly make up a subculture, by virtually any definition of the term. They have their own mass-market entertainment industry. They have "Christian" rock, "Christian" aerobics albums, "Christian" books on dinosaurs and evolution, and "Christian" comedians. They have schools and colleges with their own "Christian" curriculum that leaves out such facts as the widespread prevalence of other religions, the multicultural nature of the incredibly adaptive and flexible human race, evolution (human and otherwise), and the age of the universe. In short, many of them seek to live their lives so that they can minimize contact with all information sources that contradict their beliefs. If they do this successfully, then they can believe whatever they like and safely forget and ignore the troubling presence of not just secular humanists but also the mainstream churches of America and the world. On the other hand, most fundamentalist Christians do have regular jobs, shop at regular supermarkets, and live in normal neighborhoods, so they do interact with mainstream society on a fairly steady basis.

Agreed. But I also noticed a chronological error in this article:

Warnke's alleged conversion from high satanic priest to dedicated Christian entertainer made a fascinating story and attracted considerable attention. Unlike Smith and Pazder's Michelle Remembers, an earlier, influential, allegedly autobiographical, staunchly pro-Catholic, satanic-cult-hysteria book, The Satan Seller appealed to the evangelical Protestant community

Michelle Remembers was not "earlier." Michelle Remembers was published in 1980, whereas Mike Warnke's The Satan Seller was published back in the early 1970's.

[Diane_nyc]

21. Correction: The "new" development: "Again" would be more accurate than "new"

Correction to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217422">an earlier post of mine:

So, anti-Illuminism is not a new thing, and certainly not just (or primarily) an Internet thing. What is new is that it's now starting to influence a lot of people who are not otherwise part of either the religious right wing scene or the hardcore evangelical Christian scene. That is the new and (to me) scary development.

Instead of saying that the latter development is "new," it would be more accurate to say that it is happening "again." The last time it happened, the result was the "Satanic Ritual Abuse" scare.

On edit: Hopefully there's enough institutional memory that we won't have another full-fledged "Satanic Ritual Abuse" scare. This time around, I'm more concerned about the eventual possibility of a break-up of the Democratic Party's base, pitting, say, blacks against gays and atheists.

[vincent_vega_lives]

15. Yikes

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on this post.

[LARED]

20. Let me guess, you're trying a satirical piece? -nt

[Diane_nyc]

22. No. Perhaps I need to spell out in more detail exactly what I see as the possible dangers?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217432">As I wrote here:

On edit: Hopefully there's enough institutional memory that we won't have another full-fledged "Satanic Ritual Abuse" scare. This time around, I'm more concerned about the eventual possibility of a break-up of the Democratic Party's base, pitting, say, blacks against gays and atheists.

I'm a bit baffled as to why no one seems to be getting this.

Perhaps because none of you have ever been politically active in church/state separation issues?

Perhaps because none of you are gay????

Perhaps because none of you are at all familiar with the evangelical Christian subculture, especially the Pentecostal/charismatic wing thereof?

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Here is my defense when the mob comes after me.

"I am not a Satanic ritual abuser. I am an asshole. There's a difference."

It may not save me, but at least we'll all be in agreement what they're hanging me for.

[Diane_nyc]

34. A more likely personal danger than a mob literally coming after you.

If/when there are enough religious right wing SCOTUS justices, there could again be lots of "religious expression" in public schools, and no anti-bullying laws to prevent your kids (if/whenever you have any) from being picked on for being non-Christian.

[Bolo Boffin]

40. A mob coming after my kids.

Look, I have plenty of other reasons to work to make sure that appropriate judges are on the Supreme Court than worrying about anti-Illuminati conspiracy theorists picking on my progeny. Please get a grip.

[Diane_nyc]

48. You've completely misunderstood my point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217471">boloboffin wrote:

Look, I have plenty of other reasons to work to make sure that appropriate judges are on the Supreme Court than worrying about anti-Illuminati conspiracy theorists picking on my progeny.

I didn't say that the bullying kids themselves would necessarily be anti-Illuminist. You've completely misunderstood my argument.

My argument is this:

1) A revitalized religious right wing could have dire consequences for the SCOTUS, leading to (among other things) situations of religious bias in public schools.

2) Anti-Illuminism could very likely play a key role in religious right wing outreach to poor people who would otherwise be part of the Democratic Party's base.

I'm glad you have plenty of other reasons to be concerned about the SCOTUS. I just gave one example of possible personal harm.

I would think that your other reasons, whatever they may be, should be all the more reason for you to be concerned about a possible religious right wing resurgence.

[Bolo Boffin]

50. No, I have not.

I find your point ludicrous.

[Diane_nyc]

53. Why is my point "ludicrous"?

Can you point out even a single specific flaw in it, without twisting my words (whether deliberately or otherwise), http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217471">as you did here?

[Bolo Boffin]

74. Because it is.

And I didn't twist your words, deliberately or otherwise. You told me I should take note of anti-Illuminati bullshit because one day my kids might get picked on by right-wingers emboldened by right-winger Supreme Court decisions, all put into place by anti-Illuminati bullshit. Listen to yourself sometime.

I am far more worried about a meteor striking the Earth. FAR more worried. And like I say, I've got to go get Princess Peach one of these days.

[Diane_nyc]

79. Let's look at this point by point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217556">boloboffin wrote:

76. Because it is.

And I didn't twist your words, deliberately or otherwise.

Assuming you're being honest here, you twisted my words unintentionally and unconsciously, then. You did indeed twist my words.

You told me I should take note of anti-Illuminati bullshit because one day my kids might get picked on by right-wingers emboldened by right-winger Supreme Court decisions, all put into place by anti-Illuminati bullshit.

That's a vast straw-man oversimplification of what I've said in this thread. Consider the following points one at a time, please:

1) The religious right wing has made at least some attempts (largely though not completly unsuccessful) to reach out to Blacks and other minorities. Agreed? If not, why not?

2) There is enough homophobia and other assorted bigotry in various minority communities that greater religious right wing successes there are far from completely impossible. Agreed? If not, why not?

3) When attempting to appeal to poor people and minorities, religious right wingers are more likely to succeed if they use a populist, anti-elitist approach. Agreed? If not, why not?

4) Anti-illuminism is both (a) populist and anti-elitist, thus fitting point 3 above, and (b) already in fairly wide circulation within the evangelical Christian subculture, or at least the more extreme sectors thereof (e.g. among the folks who give credence to people like Pat Robertson and/or Tim LaHaye). Agreed? If not, why not?

5) Hence, anti-Illuminism could play a significant role in a religious right wing resurgence. If you don't agree, why not? (Note that I'm not claiming that anti-Illuminism would be the sole factor in a religious right wing resurgence, but it could indeed be a significant factor.)

6) A religious right wing resurgence could lead to, among other consequences, a right wing Supreme Court for many decades hence. Agreed? If not, why not?

7) My remark about kids being picked on was intended as a reference to Madalyn Murray O'Hair, whose historic battles were, if I remember correctly, largely motivated by her kids being picked on. My point was that a right wing Supreme Court could at least partially undo what she accomplished.

With which of my specific points above do you disagree, and on what basis?

[Bolo Boffin]

90. I do not put the same degree of concern on anti-Illuminati rhetoric as you do.

Or that you wish me to. Whatever.

I put the threat of anti-Illuminati rhetoric on about the same threat level to the Republic as (casting about for an example) toe fungus. Is toe fungus something people should be concerned about? Sure. Is it going to destroy America for all the atheistic children out there? No.

So I reject your entire argument as ludicrous. That's about as much thought as I ever plan on giving it, Diane. One of these days, I'm sure I'll be sorry about it. One day I'll be looking some prejudiced minority guy in the eyes, and he'll have a big gun, and he'll be calling me Illuminati because God and Pat Robertson told him I was, and he'll have a special badge from the Supreme Court giving him permission to drag me off to the FEMA camps, and I'll say, "Damn. Wish I hadn't dismissed Diane's concerns so flippantly."

But until then, Guppy's got those frickin' rings to jump through.

[Diane_nyc]

99. You have a right to your own priorities ....

But it's another matter to call someone else's priorities "ludicrous" without giving a coherent reason.

Once again you are apparently unable to make your point without an exaggerated, oversimplified straw-man caricature.

I invited you to point out whatever specific error you saw in my chain of reasoning. Apparently you couldn't, or at least not easily.

Why did you participate in this thread at all, if you are either unable or unwilling to participate meaningfully?

[Bolo Boffin]

101. :eyes:

Please get over yourself immediately, or at least give a coherent reason why you should not. This thread is not a good place to start presenting your case.

[Diane_nyc]

104. Admittedly the O.Pl was not entirely clear....

The O.P. left out a chain of reasoning which I wrongly assumed would be self-evident to a politically-minded progressive audience.

But I posted clarifications in subsequent posts, some of which were addressed to you.

It is, to say the least, rather uncivil of you to ignore my clarifications, especially the ones addressed to you, in favor of continuing to post contentless dismissals based on whatever conclusions you jumped to initially.

Why reply to a post at all if you can't be bothered to read it?

[muriel_volestrangler]

114. I think it's point 4(b) that's the problem

"already in fairly wide circulation within the evangelical Christian subculture, or at least the more extreme sectors thereof (e.g. among the folks who give credence to people like Pat Robertson and/or Tim LaHaye). Agreed? If not, why not?"

It seems that just about everyone who disagrees with you on this thread doesn't accept this. You say it's not common on the internet, but is elsewhere - but, unfortunately, the internet is the only arena we have in common. When I've seen people talk about the 'Illuminati', it seems aimed at the rich and powerful - politicians, those in finance - and it really doesn't seem aimed at atheists or conspiracy theory deniers.

[Diane_nyc]

117. More about the hardcore religious right wing version vs. the more generic populist version

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217622">muriel_volestrangler wrote:

120. I think it's point 4(b) that's the problem:

"already in fairly wide circulation within the evangelical Christian subculture, or at least the more extreme sectors thereof (e.g. among the folks who give credence to people like Pat Robertson and/or Tim LaHaye). Agreed? If not, why not?"

It seems that just about everyone who disagrees with you on this thread doesn't accept this. You say it's not common on the internet, but is elsewhere - but, unfortunately, the internet is the only arena we have in common.

When I've seen people talk about the 'Illuminati', it seems aimed at the rich and powerful - politicians, those in finance - and it really doesn't seem aimed at atheists

A bunch of points here, in reply to the above:

1) To this day, many poor people are more likely to get their information from books than from the Internet, simply because they cannot afford a computer. And, in the offline world, anti-Illuminist literature is more widely available within the evangelical Christian subculture than anywhere else. Of course, the anti-Illuminist literature available in the evangelical Christian subculture is likely to have a strong religious right wing flavor, including scapegoating of atheists. (In other recent posts, I've documented this in the case of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217584">Tim LaHaye and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217620">Pat Robertson.)

2) For the above reason, among others, I would expect (though I'm not sure) that the number of people who have read stuff by Tim LaHaye and Pat Robertson greatly exceeds the number of people who are fans of hardcore "Conspiracy" websites. I could be wrong about this.

3) Even on the Internet, the hardcore religious right wing form of anti-Illuminism was the most prevalent form until very recently. As recently as several years ago, if I recall correctly, most websites about "the Illuminati" had a strong and obvious religious right wing flavor. The more generic populist version seems to be a new development.

4) Today, the most popular anti-Illuminist sites such as "Prison Planet" have a more generic populist flavor, at least at first glance. However, even on those sites, the religious right wing stuff is still there, though relatively buried, for the most part.

5) Another one of the more popular sites, "Illuminati Conspiracy Archive," does advocate quite a bit of overt religious bigotry on easy-to-find pages, but without being overtly Christian (at least at first glance). Pages vilifying Pagans, the "New Age," occultists, Freemasons, and atheists are very easy to find there.

6) When you say "When I've seen people talk about the 'Illuminati'" - do you mean people here on DU? Obviously, the generic populist version is the only version you're likely to run into here on DU. Anyone who advocated the explicitly religious right wing version here on DU would probably get tombstoned pretty quick.

7) I've run into the generic populist version quite a bit at anti-war rallies. THAT bothers me, because it seems to me that it opens a door for the religious right wing to infiltrate otherwise unrelated grassroots political movements.

I certainly don't believe that these people should be banned from attending anti-war rallies. But I do think it would be desirable for there to be an educational effort to counteract their claims.

[AZCat]

147. What the hell is your basis for point #1?

I'd like to see some supporting evidence, other than your opinion.

[Diane_nyc]

149. Which aspects of point #1? It contains many subpoints. nt

[AZCat]

150. The new point #1.

1) To this day, many poor people are more likely to get their information from books than from the Internet, simply because they cannot afford a computer. And, in the offline world, anti-Illuminist literature is more widely available within the evangelical Christian subculture than anywhere else. Of course, the anti-Illuminist literature available in the evangelical Christian subculture is likely to have a strong religious right wing flavor, including scapegoating of atheists. (In other recent posts, I've documented this in the case of Tim LaHaye and Pat Robertson.)

I question the basis of the following section:

To this day, many poor people are more likely to get their information from books than from the Internet, simply because they cannot afford a computer.

[Diane_nyc]

156. Point 1 reasons

I've gone ahead and written up evidence and/or other reasons for all the sub-points of point 1 of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217625">this post of mine:

To this day, many poor people are more likely to get their information from books than from the Internet, simply because they cannot afford a computer.

This is based on the many people I've known, even within the past year or two, who didn't have a computer at home.

To at least some extent, this may be a New York thing rather than just a poor person thing. I've long suspected, though I'm not sure, that New Yorkers are less likely to have computers at home than people in most parts of the country. If true, most likely this would be because we have no shortage of other forms of entertainment. We have a gazillion movie theaters, live theaters, restaurants, bars, clubs, concert halls, museums, etc. etc. Another possible reason might be that New York has greater disparities in wealth and a higher cost of living than most parts of the country.

But, obviously, computers do cost money, so it's reasonable to expect that poor people would be less likely to have them.

And, in the offline world, anti-Illuminist literature is more widely available within the evangelical Christian subculture than anywhere else.

For example, Pat Robertson's books can be obtained by people who contribute money to the 700 club. I would expect them to be available in at least some evangelical Christian bookstores too, though I haven't verified this.

Tim LaHaye's fiction books (The "Left Behind" series) are evangelical best-sellers. Recently, according to http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5601&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=cs_">this page on the website of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, he has used fiction success to market a new version of one of his "nonfiction" books as well.

Of course, not every evangelical Christian in the world endorses Pat Robertson and Tim LaHaye. No doubt many oppose them. But they do have a very big audience.

On the other hand, where else, in the real world, would "nonfiction" literature about the "Illuminati" be available?

Well, it would be available at meetings of extreme right wing organizations. It's also available at some anti-war events, and probably some other kinds of grassroots political rallies that I haven't attended yet.

And, oh, yes: We Are Change.

I doubt that your average Barnes & Noble carries very much such literature, but I could be mistaken about that.

Perhaps some extreme right wing groups have booths at gun shows? I wouldn't know, since I don't live in gun country.

Anyhow, it seems to me that none of the above sources would likely sell anywhere nearly as many "nonfiction" books about the "Illuminati" as either Tim LaHaye or Pat Robertson. I don't have figures to prove this; it's just an educated guess. Do you see any good reason to believe otherwise?

Of course, the anti-Illuminist literature available in the evangelical Christian subculture is likely to have a strong religious right wing flavor, including scapegoating of atheists.

Because the best-known (as far as I am aware) books of this kind come from people like Tim LaHaye and Pat Robertson.

[muriel_volestrangler]

162. Having followed the excellent demolition of 'Left Behind' by the slactivist blog

there is practically nothing about 'the illuminati' in it. It does have many, many hate figures; the United Nations gets it in the neck particularly badly. Oh yes, it hates atheists; but it hates loads of Christians too, if they don't believe in the 'Rapture'. It hates women, for that matter, if they're not "properly submissive" to men.

It's very, very difficult to believe that a short-lived sect from 200 years ago still looms large in the imagination of under-informed people. Since there is no connection between that secret society and anyone living now, and the nutters like LaHaye come up with loads of other reasons why their gullible followers should hate various groups today, we just can't see that a revival of an obscure episode of hate from 200 years ago is at all likely to happen. If they want to attack the UN today, they don't say "this is just like what was happening 200 years ago!", they just say "they're damn foreigners - they must be stopped!". And if they want to attack atheists, they just say "they're godless, and going to hell, and want to destroy True Christianity!", and that's all they need to demonize them in the eyes of the gullible fundies. Mention "Illuminati", and people are more likely to think of George H.W. Bush (the amount of times his use of the phrase 'New World Order' gets used as 'proof' that he's part of some evil Illuminati-like conspiracy is far more than, say, James Randi gets). And the Bushes are allies of the religious right-wing .

[Diane_nyc]

163. Tim LaHaye has written other books besides the "Left Behind" series ...

... and he has used the popularity of the "Left Behind" series to sell his "nonfiction" books. For information about LaHaye's claims regarding the Illuminati, and for more about LaHaye in general, see http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5601&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=cs_">this page on the website of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. See also my http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217584">post aout Tim HaHaye.

Anyhow, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217681">muriel_volestrangler wrote:

It's very, very difficult to believe that a short-lived sect from 200 years ago still looms large in the imagination of under-informed people.

Hard to believe, but it does indeed. For some further documentation of this fact, see also my http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217620">post about Pat Robertson and my http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217623">post about the John Birch Society, and see the articles linked therein.

nutters like LaHaye

In case you weren't aware of this, Tim LaHaye has been a politically very influential "nutter." He was one of the founders of Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, for example, back in 1979 or so. (See also http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050207/photoessay/15.html">this Time magazine article about Tim and Beverly LaHaye as being among http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050207/">the 25 most influential evangelicals in America.)

and the nutters like LaHaye come up with loads of other reasons why their gullible followers should hate various groups today

Yes, just as Jew-haters come up with loads of other reasons to hate Jews besides The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This doesn't mean that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion isn't potentially dangerous propaganda, if left unchallenged. What propaganda like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion does is to add a further level of demonization to the vilification of Jews.

Mention "Illuminati", and people are more likely to think of George H.W. Bush (the amount of times his use of the phrase 'New World Order' gets used as 'proof' that he's part of some evil Illuminati-like conspiracy is far more than, say, James Randi gets). And the Bushes are allies of the religious right-wing.

Well, sort of. The relationship between the Bushes and the religious right wing is far more complex and ambiguous, with some religious right wingers endorsing the Bushes and others hating them. And the relationship has varied over time. The vilification of George H.W. Bush's "New World Order" speech originated (or at least was first popularized) in Pat Robertson's book The New World Order. Pat Robertson also founded the Christian Coalition, which was the most powerful religious right wing group during most of the 1990's.

[wildbilln864]

36. and we all know....

assholes are full of shit! Just sayin.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. We are all of us carrying around

...a warm, fuming pile of our excrement in our bellies, wildbill. You are no exception.

Just saying.

[hack89]

24. Perhaps we are familiar with all of that

but still think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill? There are always tensions between groups in our society - it is a price we pay for such a diverse and dynamic society. There are many bigger issues like racism, economics and the criminal justice system that are much more likely to cause a rift between African Americans and the rest of the party base before anti-Illuminism.

[Diane_nyc]

26. The religious right wing has already triggered major political realignments, and may do so again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217435">hack89 wrote:

There are always tensions between groups in our society - it is a price we pay for such a diverse and dynamic society. There are many bigger issues like racism, economics and the criminal justice system that are much more likely to cause a rift between African Americans and the rest of the party base before anti-Illuminism.

Certainly the religious right wing (of whose ideology anti-Illuminism is just one aspect) is far from the only source of tensions. I agree with you that, currently, it is not even close to being the main source of tensions between African Americans and other parts of the Democratic Party's base.

However, the religious right wing does have a track record of being able to turn a already-existing political fault lines into outright fissures - and thereby causing major political realignments.

For the most dramatic example, the South was once solidly Democratic, to the point of being known as "the Solid South." Then, around 1980, the South suddenly turned largely Republican, thanks to the religious right wing.

The religious right wing has tried to court African-Americans. See, for example http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2008/05/bishop_harry_ja_3.html">this article on the People for the American Way site about Bishop Harry Jackson, an African-American Christian religious right winger. So far, the religious right wing's outreach to African-Americans has not been very successful, although it has made some inroads.

Anti-Illuminism has the potential to enhance, greatly, the religious right wing's appeal to poor African Americans and to poor people generally, due to the natural affinity of many poor people for anti-elitism. Any successful right wing outreach to poor people would inevitably have a strong populist, anti-"Elitist" flavor.

[AZCat]

29. You are blaming the South's political shift on the religious right?

What about LBJ and the passage of the Civil Rights Act?

[Diane_nyc]

31. In the 1960's, and until around 1980, there were still many conservative Southern Democrats ...

... such as George Wallace. Remember him?

LBJ was President in the 1960's. The Civil Rights Act was also passed in the 1960's. But a lot of conservative Southern Democrats didn't become Republican until around 1980.

The religious right wing was the immediate trigger for the shift, although the Civil Rights Act was, no doubt, an important part of the long series of events that led up to it.

[AZCat]

93. It's out on loan...

so I can't pull out my copy of "With God On Their Side" to refresh my memory, but I'll be getting it back sometime this fall and since it's been a few years since I read it I plan on doing so again. IIRC the abandonment of Jimmy Carter as the "religious" solution to politics was the key to linking the Republicans and the religious right, but plenty of conservative Southern Democrats who didn't care much for the color-blind policies of the Democratic Party had their fill and turned coat soon after LBJ, hangers-on notwithstanding (Zell Miller - that fucking nutbag - for example, was a Democrat all through his political career).

[Diane_nyc]

95. Back in the 1980's, I remember hearing about "Reagan Democrats" ....

... who were a huge number of voters, mostly Southern, who voted Republican for the first time in 1980, and who then, in most cases, continued to vote Republican thereafter. According to what I've read, the religious right wing is generally given much of the credit/blame for this.

[AZCat]

96. Having come of age during the Clinton years...

all my references to this period are second-hand. "With God On Their Side" was a good primer on the history of the religious right, written by a guy from Rice. It helped explain the lead-up to the 1993-94 fundamentalist wave that swept through the midwest and turned my home state of Kansas into a nest of raving loonies.

[Diane_nyc]

100. More about the exodus of conservative Southerners from the Democratic Party

While the exodus of conservative Southerners from the Democratic Party may have begun in the 1960's, it didn't happen in earnest until around 1980. By the early 1970's, if I recall correctly, Congress still had a very large Democratic majority. Those were the Nixon years, and Congress was able to stand up to Nixon because of that large Democratic minority.

I would be interested to hear more about how you experienced the 1993-94 fundamentalist wave.

[AZCat]

102. There's plenty of information out there already.

Thomas Frank's What's The Matter With Kansas? is a good read, and anything about the Promise Keepers or Operation Rescue should be informative. It's still a fucked up state, struggling to undo the legacy of nutjobs like Fred Phelps and Phill Kline.

[Diane_nyc]

107. Thanks for the book recommendations, but ....

... I was asking about your personal impressions and your personal experiences, not just for general information.

[Diane_nyc]

110. P.S.: My reason for asking you about your personal impressions ....

... is to try to get a handle on how best to communicate with you about the religious right wing, since I seem to be having trouble communicating about it with various people here.

Hence my interest in your personal impressions and experiences, not just general information.

[AZCat]

144. I think that's part of the problem.

I, and others here, grew up around the religious right. My best friend growing up was a Nazarene (which is headquartered in Kansas City). Evangelical Christians were everywhere, especially later on in high school and at college. You may think they're threatening but I've lived next to them, played with them, even dated a few. Sure, there may be a few bad apples who constantly push for a war against the atheists, women's libbers, liberals, etc., but in order to perpetuate a real campaign of terror you need the support of the populace. Even though they might manage to sneak something past the public (like the whole State Board of Education's fiasco concerning evolution), it doesn't take long before their plans backfire. It has been my experience that the main of the evangelical movement consists of people who are basically good. They may believe some strange things (at least in my opinion) but it's been a century and a half since Kansans took to the sword (literally - with broadswords - although it was the liberals doing the hacking that time) over ideology and other than the occasional nutjob (Timothy McVeigh, for example - although he was an import) they tend to settle their disagreements through the "Letters to the Editor" page.

[Diane_nyc]

148. I don't think evangelical Christians IN GENERAL are threatening ....

However, the more fanatical and generally wacky forms of evangelical Christianity have grown over the past several decades.

And, yes, sometimes nutty religion-based notions do have truly horrendous consequences, even here in the U.S.A.

For example, are you familiar with the "Satanic Ritual Abuse" panic of the 1980's and early 1990's? (Of course, in the case of the SRA scare, there were other contributing factors besides nutty religion, but religion was certainly a factor. And I don't expect the SRA scare, in particular, to happen again, at least not in full force, though there was a mini-resurgence of it several years ago. But the original SRA scare did last about 15 years, from 1980 to 1995.)

Anyhow, the religious right wing is far from all-powerful, but it has indeed played a kingmaker role in some national elections, most notably in 1980.

It has also been a very formidable, though not completely invincible, opponent of the gay rights movement.

You wrote:

Sure, there may be a few bad apples who constantly push for a war against the atheists, women's libbers, liberals, etc., but in order to perpetuate a real campaign of terror you need the support of the populace.

Actually, not a huge number of active supporters is necessary in order to have an effective political movement. GLBT people too are only a small portion of the general population, and GLBT rights activist are, in turn, only a small portion of the GLBT population. Nevertheless the GLBT rights movement has certainly had an impact. But its successes and failures are, in turn, disproportionatly affected by the ups and downs of a small cadre of bigoted fanatical Christian activists. The success of a political movement is affected by many factors, including the ability to form alliances with other organized political movements.

On almost any given political issue, there's a small minority of people who care passionately about it one way the other, and then a broad middle ground of people who might have an opinion on the issue, but who don't really care all that much, or who even bother to find out how their Senator/Representative/etc. voted on the issue. Thus, the opinions of the more passionate organized constituencies, on any given issue, have a disproportionate influence on politicians.

Anyhow, I live in New York City, definitely not a bastion of the religious right wing, but we do have plenty of adherents of the more extreme forms of Christianity, especially among the poor. For example, we have lots and lots of storefront "deliverance ministries" in minority and mixed-race neighborhoods.

I've also run into poor folks working for extreme right wing causes, including causes that were obviously against their own interests. (For example, at an anti-war rally, I once ran into some obviously not-at-all well-to-do people distributing literature against progressive income tax. I've run into obviously poor opponents of progressive income tax elsewhere, too.)

So, I do think there's reason to be concerned about the possibility of poot folks around here being recruited into right wing causes with a sufficiently populist, "anti-elite" gloss.

That's another reason why the recent spread of "Illuminati" claims really creeps me out.

they tend to settle their disagreements through the "Letters to the Editor" page.

New York City is too big and too diverse for people to settle disagreements that way. What matters most, here, is organization and connections. I don't think NYC is in imminent danger of anything terribly awful. However, sufficient right wing organizing around here, with accompanying loss of support for progressive political movements by their natural base, could indeed potentially have disastrous consequences, if the right wingers were to pull this off successfully (which so far they haven't, for the most part).

[AZCat]

151. Perhaps you need to reread a history of the United States.

Fanatical and generally wacky forms of Christianity are our forte.

Look - if you're worried about a sort of poor people revolution against their atheist (and supposed Illuminati) oppressors, I think you're making a mountain out of the proverbial molehill. This would require a movement large enough to attract the attention of the rest of the population, which is usually when movements like this are exposed as ridiculous scams.

[Diane_nyc]

157. You didn't answer my question

157. Perhaps you need to reread a history of the United States.

Fanatical and generally wacky forms of Christianity are our forte.

I'm already well aware of this.

I'm also aware that awful things have happened within my life time.

You didn't answer my question: Are you familiar with the history of the "Satanic Ritual Abuse" scare of 1980-1995? Lots of probably innocent people (mostly ordinary working-class people, not even law-abiding Satanist, Pagans, etc.) were accused and even convicted of horrible crimes. Some convictions were overturned, but quite a few probably-innocent people are still in prison due to lack of money for appeals. Many other families were torn apart due to highly questionable "recovered memories."

Again, I'm not afraid that the SRA scare in particular will happen again. I don't know what will happen, if anything. I'm just very wary of bigotry of various kinds.

I've told you about the SRA scare just as an example of an unexpected awful consequence of various kinds of bigotry (among other problems which it was a consequence of too). When the SRA scare happened, it was an utter shock to the people I've known who were aware of what was going on. To many people, it had seemed as if American culture had become decisively a lot more tolerant and generally enlightened than it had been in the past.

More generally, lots of awful things happened during the 20th century. When they happened, they were usually a great shock to many people.

And it seems to me that bigotry of any kind is bad news and (to some degree, at least) potentially dangerous. Do you not agree?

Anyhow, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217666">you wrote:

Look - if you're worried about a sort of poor people revolution against their atheist (and supposed Illuminati) oppressors,

What's more likely to happen that is that bigotry against atheists will be used in order to push some other nasty right wing agenda.

Historically, bigotry of all kinds has been used that way by right wingers. For example, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion seems to have been primarily pro-monarchist anti-democratic propaganda, rather than primarily anti-Jewish propaganda. Its point, apparently, was to whip up already-existing popular hatred of Jews in order to oppose democratic movements by claiming that they were tools of the evil Jews.

These days, bigotry against Jews is out of fashion among the vast majority of Americans (though there are still enough anti-Jewish extremists that Jews are still, far and away, the number one target of hate crimes, according to FBI hate crime statistics, the last time I looked at them).

So too is overt racism (although there's still plenty of covert racism, e.g. lots of housing discrimination here in New York).

Bigotry against gays is still socially accepted in many places. Likewise sexism. Likewise bigotry against atheists, who, according to soem polls are regarded more negatively than gays. (I linked to such a poll elsewhere in this thread, and so too did someone else.)

Obviously, the First Amendment would most likely prevent any "revolution against atheists" from getting too far out of hand (whereas there is no similar constitutional protection for gays).

Still, as I said, bigotry of any kind is bad news and can have unforeseen consequences, sometimes horrible consequences, sometimes just annoying consequences. But there have been far too many unexpected bigotry-related disasters, of varying degrees of severity, during the past century.

[AZCat]

169. I thought it was rhetorical.

I remember hearing about this, but in a skeptical context. By the time I was old enough to be warned of such things, AIDS and drug abuse were of far greater concern (and the occasional black man ravishing our women, but that was only when the local Klan members had enough funds to print pamphlets).

Bigotry isn't a good thing, but when you grow up around people who rationalize that sort of behavior you learn how pervasive it is. If they weren't hating blacks or liberals, they'd be hating someone else. It's not the bigotry itself that I see as the problem, it's the whole process of seeking a cause (however unrelated) of your plight.

[Diane_nyc]

172. In my experience, bigotry is worth counteracting. And it's caused by more than just scapegoating.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217708">AZCat wrote:

175. I thought it was rhetorical.

I remember hearing about this, but in a skeptical context.

I was an early SRA skeptic, before the skeptical community took an interest in this topic. When the McMartin case happened in 1983, it seemed fishy to me almost immediately.

Bigotry isn't a good thing, but when you grow up around people who rationalize that sort of behavior you learn how pervasive it is. If they weren't hating blacks or liberals, they'd be hating someone else. It's not the bigotry itself that I see as the problem, it's the whole process of seeking a cause (however unrelated) of your plight.

Well then, perhaps that explains the difference in our attitudes. For much of my life, I've seen bigotry as something I ought to make a point of counteracting. I've been intermittently active in the gay rights movement, starting when I was in college. Later, one of my best friends was a longtime GLBT rights activist. My father was involved in some anti-racist activism for a while.

I have occasionally been very successful at counteracting bigotry. In college, I even managed to persuade two very vocally anti-gay fundamentalist Christians to back down.

Also, I don't agree with you that bigotry necessarily arises from "the whole process of seeking a cause (however unrelated) of your plight." Bigotry can arise from many different causes.

For example, I don't think that housing discrimination, here in New York, is motivated by a desire for scapegoats. Rather, it's based on a largely self-fulfilling prophecy that the presence of black people makes property values go down.

The desire for a scapegoat, when times are hard, certainly makes bigotry get a lot worse. For example, according to statistics I remember seeing somewhere on the ADL site, there tend to be more hate crimes during economic recessions than when times are good. But this is far from the sole or ultimate cause of bigotry, in my opinion.

Given my life experience, I believe that counteracting bigotry is definitely worthwhile. For example, things have gotten dramatically better for GLBT people during my lifetime, although we still have a long way to go. Those dramatic gains have happened thanks to the efforts of many people to counteract anti-gay bigotry, as well as the more political aspect of GLBT rights activism.

At the same time, those gains should not be taken for granted. Horrendous reversals do happen sometimes.

[Bolo Boffin]

111. Should we worry about Bavarian Illuminate prejudice or just right wing gun nuts?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/28/usa

[Diane_nyc]

113. We should be concerned about various ways in which the right wing GROWS, among other things.

The main point of being concerned about anti-Illuminism in particular, as I explained in various other posts here, is that anti-Illuminism is a means by which the religious right wing (and the right wing in general, for that matter) can reach out to new target audiences (e.g. poor people and minorities) to whom the right wing has not traditionally had much appeal.

Of course we should be concerned about what the right wing does, as well as the various ways in which the right wing can grow.

Shouldn't we concern ourselves with various different facets of the right wing? Why limit our concerns to just one aspect of the right wing?

[Bolo Boffin]

116. We are never going to stop debunking 9/11 CT here, Diane.

I got you. This last one finally got me clued in.

I was amazed at that last paragraph of yours.

You have in this thread marveled at all the atheist debunkers who won't focus in on this single aspect, this single esoteric aspect, mind you, that you have dredged up from God only knows where.

And you then say why focus in on one aspect of the right wing?????

And that's when it hit me. This entire thread is really all about getting all the debunkers worked about about the terrible anti-Illuminati bastards and getting them to leave here.

That's your aim here, isn't it? You want us gone so you're free to natter on about 9/11 bullshit and get it into the DU mainstream.

NOT HAPPENING. DEAL.

This is not going to happen, Diane. You can drop the batshit crazy act. It's a fucking insult to my intelligence that you would think this Illuminati bullshit would be red meat enough to distract me.

9/11 Conspiracy Theories, whether loopy like Judy Woods likes it, or loopy like JackRiddler likes it, is NOT WELCOME OUTSIDE THIS FORUM AT DU.

Done. Over. You might as well find some other coping mechanism. Hey, I've got an idea! Why don't you start your own website and you can talk 9/11 CT in the main forum to your heart's content?

Because what you're plotting is not going to happen here.

[Diane_nyc]

120. Yet again, you guessed wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217624">boloboffin wrote:

122. We are never going to stop debunking 9/11 CT here, Diane.

I got you. This last one finally got me clued in.

I was amazed at that last paragraph of yours.

You have in this thread marveled at all the atheist debunkers who won't focus in on this single aspect, this single esoteric aspect, mind you, that you have dredged up from God only knows where.

There is nothing "esoteric" in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217621">the post of mine that you replied to. Lots and lots of people, not just God, know about "Illuminati" claims, including the hardcore religious right wing forms thereof. (See my posts about http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217584">Tim LaHaye and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217620">Pat Robertson. Hopefully you know who Tim LaHaye and Pat Robertson are?) If you think this is esoteric, that just reflects your ignorance about the religious right wing.

And you then say why focus in on one aspect of the right wing?????

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217619">Your previous post posed an exclusive either/or: "Should we worry about Bavarian Illuminate prejudice or just right wing gun nuts?" Of course we should be concerned about right wing gun nuts, but not just about right wing gun nuts.

And that's when it hit me. This entire thread is really all about getting all the debunkers worked about about the terrible anti-Illuminati bastards and getting them to leave here.

That's your aim here, isn't it? You want us gone so you're free to natter on about 9/11 bullshit

1) It was never even my most optimistic expectation, regarding this thread, that it would convince anyone to forget about 9/11 entirely. That you think I would expect such a result is another example of your own propensity for exclusive either/or thinking.

Many "9/11 CT debunkers" do not confine their attention solely to the topic of 9/11. For example, here on DU, quite a few of the "9/11 CT debunkers" seem quite fond of off-topic threads having to do with UFO's, chemtrails, crop circles, and ESP.

2) Given the above, it is indeed odd that, of all the many topics that a well-rounded, diversified "CT debunker" could possibly allocate time for, most such people ignore the one "CT" which:

• is at least a direct insult to most of them as atheists (as documented in my posts about http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217584">Tim LaHaye and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217620">Pat Robertson) - although, admittedly, not a source of immediate personal danger.


• is a direct threat to the Democratic Party, by being a means through which the religious right wing can influence people (primarily poor people and minorities) who are otherwise a part of the Democratic Party's base.


• is one of the underlying ideologies of most of the subculture of people who believe in numerous "CT's."

3) What specific "9/11 bullshit" have I "nattered on" about?

4) There's nothing wrong with "debunking 9/11 CT's" (apart from my objections to the term "CT"). A lot of nonsense has indeed been promulgated in the name of "9/11 Truth," and there's nothing wrong with debunking it. (I do have problems with your approach, however. More about that in later posts.)

You also wrote:

You want us gone so you're free to natter on about 9/11 bullshit and get it into the DU mainstream.

...

Because what you're plotting is not going to happen here.

Isn't the above remark of yours a "CT," by your own definition?

Worse yet, are you not putting forth speculation as fact?

The most that I expected this thread to accomplish, in terms of goings-on here at DU, was to change the nature of the off-topic threads around here.

Why did I bring up this topic? Because I loathe anti-Illuminism. My loathing for it pre-dates my involvement in 9/11 Truth activism. I loathe it because I am, directly or indirectly, a member of several of the different non-elite categories of people who are scapegoated by the hardcore religious right wing version of anti-Illuminism. Thus it baffles me that many atheists don't likewise loathe anti-Illuminism, given that atheists are explicitly the leading scapegoat of the most widespread versions of anti-Illuminism (e.g. Tim LaHaye's and Pat Robertson's), and given that all versions of anti-Illuminism scapegoat atheists at least implicitly, given who the historical Bavarian Illuminati were.

I would add that, far from being "esoteric," "Illuminati" claims constitute one of the central underlying ideologies of a lot of the folks who tend to believe in numerous "CT's." So, for someone who debunks numerous "CT's" (as distinct from a "9/11 debunker" specialist) to ignore anti-Illuminism would be like someone trying to debunk the Communist Party by focusing only on particular issues that the CP got involved in, while ignoring Marxism.

[SDuderstadt]

121. Thanks for "illuminating" us on this subject n/t

[Diane_nyc]

124. You're welcome. Do you have any thoughts or questions about it? nt

[SDuderstadt]

127. My post was "tongue-in-cheek"...

I think the thread is frankly boring, Sorry.

[Diane_nyc]

131. If you find it "boring," why did you post here at all, then? nt

[SDuderstadt]

132. I don't think I need a reason to post a tongu-in-cheek response....

to try to make it less boring.

[Diane_nyc]

133. It's contentless thread hijacking. It's also rude.

If a thread doesn't interest you, why not just ignore it?

[SDuderstadt]

134. Oh, for crying out loud, Diane.....

it was a "take" on your post, boring or not. You take yourself way too seriously.

[Diane_nyc]

135. Well, since you insist on posting here, could you please post something substantive?

I suspect that this thread bothers you on some level. Could you please be specific?

[SDuderstadt]

136. Yeah, it's boring...

like most of your posts. Is that specific enough?


P.S. As far as I know, the owners of this site set the rules as to who may respond to posts and how, not you.

[Diane_nyc]

138. Please cease and desist.

Further non-substantive and irrelevant heckling of this kind will be reported as harassment.

[SDuderstadt]

139. I made one little play on words....

you've insisted on making this a running dialogue and much more than it actually was. Somehow, I don't get the impression that the mods will regard it as harassment.

[Diane_nyc]

140. In the future, leave me alone except to make substantive, on-topic points. nt

[SDuderstadt]

141. I'll comment in whatever way I want...

within the rules. You don't own this website.

[Diane_nyc]

142. The rules officially prohibit even "mild" incivility. They also prohibit thread hijacking. nt

[AZCat]

143. Then hit the "alert" button and let Lithos deal with it.

It doesn't do any good to keep fucking whining about it.

[Grateful for Hope]

165. Whining?

This was the original post in response to an obvious effort to explain the thinking behind the OP by Diane_nyc:

Thanks for "illuminating" us on this subject n/t

And, Diane_nyc responded, IMO, appropriately considering the level of heckle.

As you know, AZ, I respect what you have to say. But, in this case, I wonder why you had to describe Diane's post as "whining". The DU rules do say that one is permitted to mention the rules when addressing another poster's behavior.

Why would you belittle what the rules allow?

And, BTW, I hope all is well with you.

[AZCat]

167. Because I think Diane is misinterpreting the rules...

and using it to change the behavior of another poster. That pissed me off (although I've probably been guilty of the same offense), so my language was a bit more hostile than it would have been normally.

And I was drinking.

I am doing pretty good. The new job seems to be a much better fit, although there are always issues (either internal or external). I feel sorry for my ex-coworkers, though - the old place is squarely in a handbasket and headed you-know-where.

[Grateful for Hope]

174. Very good to hear that your new job is a good fit!

Thanks for the explanation, AZ.

[AZCat]

179. And yours?

Are things still going well for you?

[Grateful for Hope]

180. Yes, very well, AZ.

I am starting to have some fun at work as I am no longer "new". I think the job is a very good fit -- both personally and professionally.

Thanks for asking!

[SDuderstadt]

168. Oh, for crying out loud.....

making a play on words isn't "heckling". Jesus Christ.

[Diane_nyc]

170. What bothered me, and why.

The original play on words isn't what bothered me. What bothered me was your attitude in the subsequent posts, which I interpreted as a declaration of intent to annoy me just for the hell of it (i.e., just to "liven up" a thread you found otherwise "boring").

I wouldn't have minded if, after I replied to your play on words, you had responded with something like, "I was being sarcastic, I don't really find this thread illuminating at all, I think it's crap because you're wrong on points A, B, and C, and here's why ...."

Your apparent declaration of intent to annoy me just for the fun of annoying me, without voicing any substantive objections to what I was saying, is what I took as a likely beginning of harassment. That's why I then responded the way I did.

[SDuderstadt]

171. No one's trying to "annoy" you....

I'd let it go if I were you. You've made far too much of it.

[AZCat]

155. In 1995...

I was at a college in the same neck of the woods where Timothy McVeigh built his bomb. When he was caught, a lot of us had to re-evaluate our friends and family members. Those who were cheering on McVeigh's actions were not the kind of people I wanted to spend time with. They were not, as a rule, religious fanatics - just loonies without jobs but with plenty of frustration and social isolation.

[Diane_nyc]

158. Agreed that there are plenty of nonreligious loonies, but ...

... the religious loonies are typically a lot more organized and have more of a following, and hence have a lot more political power than the nonreligious loonies.

[vincent_vega_lives]

25. Perhaps because we have other priorities?

I'm only in the dungeon because it amuses me. Outside in real life "9-11 Truthers" have very little impact on the world.

Illuminati is somthing CFL's do.

[Diane_nyc]

27. Do your priorities include ANY kind of serious political activism? nt

[vincent_vega_lives]

61. Yes

I don't consider fighting the "Illuminati" serious political activism.

[Diane_nyc]

63. TOTAL misunderstanding here. Please re-read what I wrote.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217516">vincent_vega_lives wrote:

I don't consider fighting the "Illuminati" serious political activism.

If you think I'm advocating fighting the "Illuminati," then you clearly have not bothered to read what I wrote. Where on Earth did you get THAT idea???

Please re-read my major points http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217472">as summed up here, for example.

Anyhow, are you at all concerned about a possible resurgence of the religious right wing?

[LARED]

38. As they say down South

That dog don't hunt.

It's kind of ironic. You are trying get the same people to believe your ridiculous theories, that don't believe the rest of the BS theories postulated by truthers like you.

Do you really believe people are so easily swayed by your merit less position?

[Diane_nyc]

51. Could you please respond with substantive arguments, not contentless dismissals?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217469">LARED wrote:

You are trying get the same people to believe your ridiculous theories

What ridiculous theories? And why do you consider them ridiculous? Can you make even a single substantive argument against them?

Do you really believe people are so easily swayed by your merit less position?

Why is my position "meritless"?

I've made what I consider to be coherent arguments. If you can refute them, please do so.

Otherwise, kindly cut out the contentless dismissals.

[LARED]

68. Here you go.

From here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217381

More generally, I've noticed that the majority of "conspiracy theory debunkers" seem to be atheists.

Really? Is this based on facts or is this your opinion. Are you polling debunkers as to their religious or non religious views? As you provide no evidence to back up this claim, I will assume this is your opinion and not in fact a basis for an argument.

That being the case, why aren't more "conspiracy theory debunkers" more up-in-arms about the one very popular "conspiracy theory" which is to atheists as Protocols of the Elders of Zion is to Jews?

Your moral equivalence of anti-Semitism to anti-Illuminism (a newly coined phrase to suit your purpose) has no modern connection, and is patently ridiculous. Of course if there was evidence that atheists where persecuted by these so called anti-Illimunist in a material way you would hear about it and you would post the evidence.

I mean the one which claims that the world is secretly ruled by a late-1700's Bavarian underground group of mostly atheists (who, at that time, needed to organize secretly because they were persecuted).

Last time I checked there are no atheist organizations being driven underground because of persecution. Christian organizations are driven underground in many places on the globe, yet you don’t seem too concerned about those people’s freedoms.

Why isn't there more concern about anti-Illuminism in the JREF forum? (Here's the list of "Illuminati" threads on JREF - they don't seem to be very frequent, and hardly any serious debunking goes into them.) Why aren't there a whole bunch of websites out there targeting and refuting anti-Illuminist claims in detail? In my opinion, there should be.

Maybe no one is concerned because there is little to be concerned about. Your attempt to convince people this is a concern to be taken seriously thus far has provided either a collective shrug or outright laughter. Maybe this is a clue you have “jumped the shark”

Of course, anti-Illuminism doesn't target just atheists. It also targets "Satanists," occultists, Pagans, Freemasons, feminists, and gays, among others. Some variants target Jews as well. However, the historical Bavarian Illuminati were mostly atheists. Thus, atheists should be regarded as the central target of anti-Illuminism, at least implicitly if not explicitly.

By target do you mean they are persecuted or do you mean people disagree with them? Unless they are targets of persecution that is sanctioned or ignored by the state, then people have every right to make their views of “"Satanists," occultists, Pagans, Freemasons, feminists, and gays known. It’s called free speech. I’m sure you have heard of the concept.

The historical Bavarian Illuminati also championed various ideals, such as the separation of church and state, which most of us today would regard as axiomatic to modern Western civilization. So, anti-Illuminism should be a matter of concern to anyone who values modern secular society.

And here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217433

I'm a bit baffled as to why no one seems to be getting this.


Perhaps because none of you are at all familiar with the evangelical Christian subculture, especially the Pentecostal/charismatic wing thereof?

I am pretty familiar with the evangelical culture and have knowledge of the Pentecostal/charismatic wing. With the exception of a small minority in these groups they understand that separation of church and state is critical to them providing the ability to worship how they please. Keeping the state out of religion is at the heart of the reformation. People purposefully or out of ignorance like to think these folks want to institute a theocracy. As I said outside of a very small segment of this group they simply do not want that. They want the ability to have access to the public square like everyone with a passionate set of believes.

Nice try at fear mongering with the ending "anti-Illuminism should be a matter of concern to anyone who values modern secular society". Are you seriously posing that anti=illuminism threatens modernity? That's laughable.

There is nothing more vile in my view than demagogues that want to shut down voices that disagree with them.

[Diane_nyc]

76. Thanks for your reply. Some clarifications ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217531">Lared wrote (quoting me):

More generally, I've noticed that the majority of "conspiracy theory debunkers" seem to be atheists.

Really? Is this based on facts or is this your opinion. Are you polling debunkers as to their religious or non religious views? As you provide no evidence to back up this claim, I will assume this is your opinion and not in fact a basis for an argument.

Admittedly just an impression, not based on a scientific survey.

Here in this forum, for example, I've seen several of the official-story defenders mention that they are atheists, whereas I haven't seen any of them mention that they were an adherent of some religion. My impression is also based on my (admittedly limited) knowledge of the history of the organized "Skeptics" community.

Your moral equivalence of anti-Semitism to anti-Illuminism (a newly coined phrase to suit your purpose) has no modern connection, and is patently ridiculous.

What do you mean by "morally equivalent"? I did not use that phrase, nor would have I said that anti-Illuminism and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are "equivalent" in the sense of having led, so far, to an equal amount of persecution. While anti-Illuminism has historically led to periodic persecutions and panics, it has not yet led (except via its influence on The Protocols) to anything on the scale of the Holocaust. Nor do I expect it to. As I specifically indicated in the O.P., I don't expect the U.S.A. to turn into anything quite as bad as a Christian theocratic equivalent of Nazi Germany.

However, anti-Illuminism and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are indeed largely equivalent in content, due to a great deal of mutual plagiarism. The The Protocols were plagiarized from various older sources, including anti-Illuminist sources. Conversely, some of today's anti-Illuminists have alleged that The Protocols are 100% true as long as you substitute "Illuminati" for "Jews" or "Elders of Zion." (I'll dig up specifics on these points later, if you would like.)

Furthermore, it has been argued that anti-Illuminism is really just a relatively politically correct disguise for bigotry against Jews. And indeed, for some anti-Illuminists, that's probably exactly what it is. However, anti-Illuminism has also been used to vilify other categories of people as well, and there are plenty of anti-Illuminists who don't seem to think of their beliefs as having anti-Jewish implications.

(a newly coined phrase to suit your purpose)

"Anti-Illuminism" is not a newly coined term. It is a revival of a late 1770's term.

has no modern connection

There has been close to a century of historical connection between anti-Illuminism and bigotry against Jews, ever since The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Of course if there was evidence that atheists where persecuted by these so called anti-Illimunist in a material way you would hear about it and you would post the evidence.

Do you disagree that atheists were persecuted in the 1700's and earlier?

Today's religious right wingers are, for the most part, not in a position to persecute atheists materially. However, the more extreme folks among them would certainly like to be. For example, are you familiar with Christian Reconstructionism? They, and some other "Dominionists," desire ultimately a return to "Biblical Civil Law," complete with death by stoning for "blasphemers" and "idolators" (ahd homosexuals, too).

Last time I checked there are no atheist organizations being driven underground because of persecution.

Neither, at least here in the U.S.A., are any Jewish organizations being driven underground because of persecution either. (There are other countries in the world, e.g. Saudi Arabia, where both Jewish and atheist organizations are forbidden - and Christian organizations too.)

Christian organizations are driven underground in many places on the globe, yet you don’t seem too concerned about those people’s freedoms.

My concerns in this thread have been focussed mainly on national U.S. politics, rather than on world politics. There certainly are other countries in the world where Christians are persecuted.

Here in the U.S.A., there is not even a remote chance of Christians per se being persecuted (although, historically, some Christian sects have been persecuted here by other Christians). On the other hand, if the more fanatical forms of Christianity continue to grow, and if the religious right wing has a significant resurgence, then non-Christians of all stripes do face real potential dangers here.

Quoting me, you wrote:

Of course, anti-Illuminism doesn't target just atheists. It also targets "Satanists," occultists, Pagans, Freemasons, feminists, and gays, among others. Some variants target Jews as well. However, the historical Bavarian Illuminati were mostly atheists. Thus, atheists should be regarded as the central target of anti-Illuminism, at least implicitly if not explicitly.

By target do you mean they are persecuted or do you mean people disagree with them?

I mean vilify, not just disagree. I mean spread all manner of blatant nonsense about these categories of people, such as, for example, the idea that we're all part of a plot to kill off 4/5 of the world's population.

Unless they are targets of persecution that is sanctioned or ignored by the state, then people have every right to make their views of “"Satanists," occultists, Pagans, Freemasons, feminists, and gays known. It’s called free speech. I’m sure you have heard of the concept.

Here in the U.S.A., people have the right to publish stuff like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion too. Other people have the right to voice worries about it, too, and to try to counteract its influence. (In various European countries, hate literature is forbidden. I'm inclined to think that the American system is better in this regard. Outright forbidding an idea serves only to grant it more credibility in the eyes of independent-minded people. And indeed, Europe still seems to have a far)

I am pretty familiar with the evangelical culture and have knowledge of the Pentecostal/charismatic wing. With the exception of a small minority in these groups they understand that separation of church and state is critical to them providing the ability to worship how they please.

That is certainly the traditional view held by Baptists and other evangelicals up until the 1970's or so. However, it's my understanding, from a variety of sources that I've seen over the years, that there have been some moves away from that traditional position on the part of even the Southern Baptist Convention. I can try to dig up specifics later, if you would like to discuss this further.

Keeping the state out of religion is at the heart of the reformation.

Actually, the idea of separation of church and state wasn't implemented until two centuries after the Reformation. The Lutherans, the Calvinists, and the Anglicans had state churches just like the Catholics. The Calvinists burned Servetus at the stake. The separation of Church and State was an ideal of the Enlightenment, not the Reformation.

People purposefully or out of ignorance like to think these folks want to institute a theocracy.

I don't think the majority of American Christians want a full-fledged theocracy, but there are indeed a relatively small group of extremists who do, and those extremists have been disproportionately active in the religious right wing.

They want the ability to have access to the public square like everyone with a passionate set of believes.

Hopefully you're right about the majority of Christians in general on that point, but even the more moderate religious right wing activists do want considerably more than that. At the very least, they want the U.S.A. to be officially a "Christian nation" in various ways. Most of them also want to persecute gays, limit women's rights in various ways, etc.

Nice try at fear mongering with the ending "anti-Illuminism should be a matter of concern to anyone who values modern secular society". Are you seriously posing that anti=illuminism threatens modernity?

Indirectly, yes, or at least some (not all) aspects of modernity.

As I explained:

1) There are groups of Christians, of the more extreme kinds, primarily among Blacks and among poor people, whom the religioss right wing has not yet had a great deal of success recruiting.

2) The spread of anti-Illuminism is likely to help the religious right wing reach more poor people and thus expand its base.

There is nothing more vile in my view than demagogues that want to shut down voices that disagree with them.

Do you mean to insinuate here that I'm one of those "demagogues that want to shut down voices that disagree with them"? I'm not trying to shut down other people's voices. My aim is only to encourage more people to speak out in response to anti-Illuminism, and to do so in a more serious and systematic way.

[LARED]

81. I agree, lets clarify

You stated

That being the case, why aren't more "conspiracy theory debunkers" more up-in-arms about the one very popular "conspiracy theory" which is to atheists as Protocols of the Elders of Zion is to Jews?

Bolding mine

Ok, you claim that statement is not you making a moral equivalent between so called anti-Illuminism and anti-semitism. I'll take you at your word if you agree it's at a minimum excessive hyperbole (is that redundant?) or perhaps demagoguery as you seem to be taking the lead on the "pressing dangers" of anti-Illuminism to modernity.

[Diane_nyc]

97. Some further clarifications

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217570">Lared wrote:

Ok, you claim that statement is not you making a moral equivalent between so called anti-Illuminism and anti-semitism

The parallel I've drawn is not between "anti-Illuminism and anti-semitism" but between anti-Illuminism and The protocols of the Elders of Zion, specifically. Bigotry against Jews has taken many different forms throughout history. The protocols of the Elders of Zion is only a relatively recent form, almost a century old.

As for "moral equivalence," I should add that it is, in my opinion, meaningless to speak of a moral equivalence or non-equivalence between the common themes of anti-Illuminism and The Protocols. The themes don't exist in a vacuum. The "moral" consequences of a theme vary greatly with time, place, and circumstances. And we don't know what the future will bring.

But I do think that themes of this kind are inherently at least potentially dangerous, regardless of which group they are applied to. And, in other posts here, I've outlined the specific mechanisms by which I think anti-Illuminism poses a danger to various minorities targeted by the religious right wing.

if you agree it's at a minimum excessive hyperbole

The parallel I've drawn, in terms of content, is not hyperbole. The themes are almost identical, as one would expect from all that plagiarism.

[LARED]

146. You are spending a lot of effort on this anti-Illuminism shtick

and it just isn't catching on. Good luck.

[Pale Blue Dot]

28. As an athiest, I can honestly say:

:rofl:

[onager]

30. Fnord!

Joining you in the...

:rofl:

[Diane_nyc]

32. Yes, it's hard for many nonreligious people to take the religious right wing seriously.

To many nonreligious people, folks like Pat Robertson often seem like nothing more than a joke. Televangelists and other right wing leaders seem like such buffoons. How can anyone take them seriously?

It's hard to believe that people like Pat Robertson could actually be kingmakers. But indeed they have been kingmakers.

This is one of the major reasons for the successes of the religious right wing. Because not enough potential opponents took them seriously, the opposition wasn't nearly as effective as it could otherwise have been.

[Pale Blue Dot]

33. I take Pat Robertson seriously on his own merits.

Not on the phony-baloney garbage you posted in the OP.

[Diane_nyc]

35. Anti-illuminism could indeed play a significant role in a religious right wing resurgence ...

... as I've explained in various posts here, such as http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217450">this one.

By the way, are you familiar with the religious right wing's vilification of "secular humanists"? Gays aren't their only targets, you know.

[Pale Blue Dot]

37. ...

:rofl:

[Diane_nyc]

41. Care to point out any specific flaws in my reasoning here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217450">As I wrote here:

... The religious right wing does have a track record of being able to turn a already-existing political fault lines into outright fissures - and thereby causing major political realignments.

For the most dramatic example, the South was once solidly Democratic, to the point of being known as "the Solid South." Then, around 1980, the South suddenly turned largely Republican, thanks to the religious right wing.

The religious right wing has tried to court African-Americans. See, for example http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2008/05/bishop_harry_ja_3.html">this article on the People for the American Way site about Bishop Harry Jackson, an African-American Christian religious right winger. So far, the religious right wing's outreach to African-Americans has not been very successful, although it has made some inroads.

Anti-Illuminism has the potential to enhance, greatly, the religious right wing's appeal to poor African Americans and to poor people generally, due to the natural affinity of many poor people for anti-elitism. Any successful right wing outreach to poor people would inevitably have a strong populist, anti-"Elitist" flavor.

Furthermore, anti-Illuminism is already very much a part of the more fanatical branches of evangelical Christian culture, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217422">as I explained here.

What specific part(s) of the above do you not agree with, and why?

[Grateful for Hope]

42. Found a few threads in the Religion/Theology forum

That seem to support some of what you are saying.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x180121
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x179974

I never post in that forum, but, I do read it from time-to-time. I have noticed almost frenzied debunking by atheists, and, sometimes wondered what they were afraid of.

I had not realized the origins of "anti-illuminism".

One of the posters in the second thread indicated that there have been polls on trustworthiness, and, atheists always come out on the bottom. So, it would seem that religion may indeed have some impact on how others are viewed, and, there may well be some danger inherent in this type of influence.

As an aside, I have also wondered about some who seem to "worship" scientific method in the same way that others "worship" their deities. Is it possible that humans have an innate need to look outside themselves for something or someone to diefy?

[Bolo Boffin]

43. Where is the scientific method outside of myself?

I was wanting to do a pilgrimage.

[Grateful for Hope]

44. Keep heckling, bolo

you are soooooo good at it.

[Bolo Boffin]

45. I'm serious. You say some atheists needs something like the SM outside themselves to worship...

...where is the scientific method outside of us?

I'm sorry that your little shiv is rather blunt. I suggest less obsessive sharpening.

[Grateful for Hope]

47. Again with the projections

Frenzied defense of the scientific method suggests far more than a simple respect for it. But then, I wouldn't expect you to grasp this.

[Bolo Boffin]

49. Please point out any "frenzied defense" of the scientific method

The way you enjoy attacking "some atheists" is interesting, Hope. Would you care to be Exhibit A for Diane's argument? Tell all about your beliefs about the Illuminati.

[Grateful for Hope]

52. Hmmmm

interesting you would think that I am attacking some atheists. My original post said quite the opposite...and, again, I wouldn't expect you to grasp this because you are hell-bent on attacking whatever I post.

Grow up, bolo. An observation of behavior (look at the UFO threads in this forum for reference) does not mean an attack. Far from it. People will tend to strongly defend what they revere.

[varkam]

46. If some "worship" the scientific method...

it is only because the scientific method has gotten results. It's put planes in the sky and allows us to communicate via the internet. It doesn't really require faith to see that.

What have theologians done for us, lately?

[Grateful for Hope]

54. I am neutral on what one believes or worships.

That is why I don't participate in the Religion/Theology forum.

[varkam]

56. You don't have to pick a side...

to recognize the truth of what I said. What's more, many atheists would consider an accusation of "worship" to be a pejorative.

[Grateful for Hope]

58. End of discussion n/t

[varkam]

60. Odd that...

one with their fingers in their ears would choose to participate in a discussion forum. Perhaps such behavior is an indication that one is not interested in discussion so much as dogmatic declaration.

[Grateful for Hope]

65. Again...

This is the 9/11 forum, not the Religion/Theology forum. I do not choose to post in the Religion/Theology forum.

I posted the links in this thread because they seemed to support the OP. They were not posted in order to get into a discussion about the relative merits of Atheism vs. Religion. To each his own.

[varkam]

66. And again...

I said that you need not even have an opinion on the relative merits of atheism versus theism to have an opinion on both what I said and the fact that many atheists would take what you said as a pejorative.

[Grateful for Hope]

67. I know what my intention was

and, if my comments were taken as perjorative by anyone, that is an unfortunate result of subjective interpretation.

Making an observation is not an attack, unless the person making the observation is doing so for the purpose of attack.

If I really wanted to attack atheists (which I don't), I would do so in the Religion/Theology forum.

I am now done with this discussion.

On edit: I can see how my use of the words "frenzied debunking" would seem perjorative. A better term might have been "forceful debunking". And, BTW, I only singled out atheists in that observation because I was responding to the OP. In reality, I see similar behavior on all sides of the debates in the Religion/Theology forum. And, I do think that there is some degree of underlying fear given the forcefulness of these debates.

[varkam]

70. Hmm...

Well, it wasn't "frenzied debunking" that I was thinking of - rather the rhetorical question "what are they afraid of", the notion that one can worship "science" et cetera. And you need not post in the R/T forum to showcase intolerance - why, you can do that anywhere, including the 9/11 forum.

I'm not saying that your intention was to attack atheists. Rather, I have made no comment on your motivations for saying what you said. I was merely pointing out the ignorance inherent in such statements.

Prey tell, though, why do you think that the only motivating factor for "forcefulness" is fear? Oh, I forgot, you are done with this discussion.

Have a good one :hi:

[Grateful for Hope]

73. Have you seen Diane_nyc's latest post about worship?

I would be interested in your response to her.

"I was merely pointing out the ignorance inherent in such statements.". I was not making a statement, I was speculating.

Given that atheists seem to be regarded unfavorably, the underlying fear I can imagine might exist is of being misunderstood, or even of being abused because of one's beliefs. BTW, I was surprised to see the poll data. I had no idea that atheism was viewed so negatively, and, I think that Diane_nyc was very sharp in making the connection to the religious right.

And, yes, from what I have seen on this website, many here do worship science. Unfortunately, you consider this a negative comment. I think it is neither negative nor positive.

Rather than latching on to to what you perceive to be negative in my post, perhaps you could step back and try to see that my intention was to support the OP. And, the OP was certainly not putting down atheists.

[varkam]

85. Here's the thing...

And, yes, from what I have seen on this website, many here do worship science. Unfortunately, you consider this a negative comment. I think it is neither negative nor positive.

Just because you so it is true doesn't make it so. IMO, using the term "worship" when referring to science is a lot like using the term "fundamentalist atheist" or calling atheism a religion. At best it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what science actually is.

[Grateful for Hope]

89. To each his own.

I don't happen to have the same respect for science that you have. This is because my education centered more on statistics, and, I learned how easy it is to lie using them.

IMO, we know far, far less than we don't know. The scientific method has it's merits, and, it has it shortcomings. It has definitely increased our knowledge base, but, I think it has also hampered us in respect to inspiring us to use our imaginations in situations where observation and measurement are not possible -- or, at least not possible because we do not yet have the technology to do so.

Certainly my observations are subjective. And, just as certainly, your interpretation of the word "worship" is equally as subjective.

[varkam]

103. Funny, I have a stats background, too.

And you are right, statistics are a tool. They can be used for good, or for ill - but that has nothing to do with the scientific method. As I have said, the scientific method produces results; results which no other paradigm or system of thought has delivered. You don't have to "believe" in science: you're soaking in it. IMO, the more one knows about science and the methods by which it is supposed to accomplish what it sets out to, the easier it is to call out the frauds and the charlatans.

IMO, we know far, far less than we don't know. The scientific method has it's merits, and, it has it shortcomings. It has definitely increased our knowledge base, but, I think it has also hampered us in respect to inspiring us to use our imaginations in situations where observation and measurement are not possible -- or, at least not possible because we do not yet have the technology to do so.

I'm not sure exactly where we fall on the know vs. don't know spectrum, but I'd be willing to wager we still have miles to go. Take dark matter, for example. The majority of the universe is made of it, yet we still don't have a clue as to what it is.

I disagree with you - I think science is sublimely inspiring. Correctly understood, at least for me, science drives - not hampers - imagination. You should read Dawkins' "Unweaving the Rainbow", you might enjoy it.

Certainly my observations are subjective. And, just as certainly, your interpretation of the word "worship" is equally as subjective.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Language has a meaning, and not a meaning that is subjective. If language were entirely subjective, then communication would not be possible for I would say one thing and you would take it to mean something else entirely.

[Diane_nyc]

109. Meanings of words: subjective or objective?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217610">varkam wrote:

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Language has a meaning, and not a meaning that is subjective. If language were entirely subjective, then communication would not be possible for I would say one thing and you would take it to mean something else entirely.

I would say that meanings themselves are subjective, but that there objectively exists is a consensus among most (not necessarily all) people about the meaning of any given word.

People do, in fact, have misunderstandings about the meanings of words quite often. The kind of misunderstanding you're having with Hope2006 right now is not at all uncommon.

(I'm now trying to help you straighten out that misunderstanding. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217615">my latest post here. I agree with you that, when talking about atheists, people should try to avoid terminology that atheists are likely to find offensive. I'm trying to develop a constructive alternative to some of that terminology.)

For another example of a word on whose meaning many folks here have had disagreements, see the recent threads http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=216495&mesg_id=216495">So, you believe in Conspiracy Theories, do you?... and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=215928">The multiple meanings of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracism" - highly ambiguous and loaded terms.

[Diane_nyc]

69. "Worship" is another ambiguous and loaded term, apparently ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217510">varkam wrote:

What's more, many atheists would consider an accusation of "worship" to be a pejorative.

I'm aware of this, but perhaps it might be helpful to others here if you could elaborate on the above point, from your point of view.

Looking at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/worship">the definitions of "worship" on dictionary.reference.com:

From Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1):

–noun
1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
2. formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning.
3. adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.
4. the object of adoring reverence or regard.
5. (initial capital letter) British. a title of honor used in addressing or mentioning certain magistrates and others of high rank or station (usually prec. by Your, His, or Her).
–verb (used with object)
6. to render religious reverence and homage to.
7. to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing).
–verb (used without object)
8. to render religious reverence and homage, as to a deity.
9. to attend services of divine worship.
10. to feel an adoring reverence or regard.

...

—Synonyms 3. honor, homage, adoration, idolatry. 7. honor, venerate, revere, adore, glorify, idolize, adulate.

As we can see from the above definitions, including #3, #4, #7, and #10, the word "worship" is often used in a nonreligious context, to refer to "worship" of persons and things other than deities.

Nevertheless, I'm aware that some atheists are highly offended by the word "worship." So, is there a better word than "worship" that could be used to refer to your high regard for science? If so, what word would you prefer?

Anyhow, from the American Heritage Dictionary:

n.

1.
. 1. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
. 2. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
2. Ardent devotion; adoration.
3. often Worship Chiefly British Used as a form of address for magistrates, mayors, and certain other dignitaries: Your Worship.

v. wor·shiped or wor·shipped, wor·ship·ing or wor·ship·ping, wor·ships

v. tr.

1. To honor and love as a deity.
2. To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion. See Synonyms at revere1.


v. intr.

1. To participate in religious rites of worship.
2. To perform an act of worship.

Again there are both religious and nonreligious uses of the term. Are the nonreligious definitions not applicable to your attitude toward science? If not, how not? Or do you just object to the term "worship" because of its religious connotations, rather than its nonreligious literal meanings?

My point here is not to debate with you, but just to ask for a clarification, in your own words. You're certainly entitled to your feelings about the word "worship."

[varkam]

71. Worship, in modern parlance,

frequently has a connotation of religious adulation, or otherwise blind and unquestioning devotion - the very things to which many atheists are reviled against (hence the reason why many would take it as a pejorative). That being said, the nonreligious definitions are not applicable in that there is a connotation of blind and unquestioning devotion; things which tend to the be antithesis of scientific inquiry.

They are not merely my feelings, either. Please, feel free to post a question to the atheists/agnostic group and see what kind of a response that you receive.

[Diane_nyc]

77. Thanks. A better word than "worship," then?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217535">varkam wrote:

72. Worship, in modern parlance,

frequently has a connotation of religious adulation, or otherwise blind and unquestioning devotion - the very things to which many atheists are reviled against (hence the reason why many would take it as a pejorative). That being said, the nonreligious definitions are not applicable in that there is a connotation of blind and unquestioning devotion; things which tend to the be antithesis of scientific inquiry.

Thanks for the clarification. You said more-or-less what I expected you to say, but I thought it would be better for me to prompt you to say it rather than to put words in your mouth.

Next question: If a religious person were to draw any kind of parallel between your feelings about science and the person's own feelings about God, what words would be appropriate for that purpose? Obviously the feelings are different, but there are indeed some commonalities. Having ruled out the word "worship," what other words would be okay for those commonalities?

(My aim here is to help figure out how Hope2006's point could have been made in a non-offensive way.)

[Grateful for Hope]

78. A small clarification

If by this (emphasis mine):

Next question: If a religious person were to draw any kind of parallel between your feelings about science and the person's own feelings about God, what words would be appropriate for that purpose? Obviously the feelings are different, but there are indeed some commonalities. Having ruled out the word "worship," what other words would be okay for those commonalities?

you are indicating that you think I am a religious person, I thought I had better clear this up. I was "religious" as a child, but, decided it was all nonsense when I became an adult.

I am not, however, an atheist either. This is not a black-and-white issue.

There are people who do not subscribe to any religion, but, who maintain an open mind when it comes to a "power greater than oneself" possibility. This is my orientation, and, it does not favor either the religious or the atheist perspective. It is what I think is analogous to the "independent" political affiliation.

However, I think that everyone has the right to their beliefs, whatever they may be. For instance, I get offended for Christians when I see someone post an expletive that denigrates their religion's definition of "God". But, because posters are expected to have "thick skins" when posting here, I also understand why such posts are allowed.

[varkam]

84. What you're describing...

is not the right of people to have their beliefs.

However, I think that everyone has the right to their beliefs, whatever they may be. For instance, I get offended for Christians when I see someone post an expletive that denigrates their religion's definition of "God". But, because posters are expected to have "thick skins" when posting here, I also understand why such posts are allowed.

More aptly, you are describing that you think that people should have the right to demand respect from other people for their beliefs.

I agree with you that people should be free to believe whatever they want to about the unknown/unknowable. I think that sort of self-determination is a basic aspect of fundamental human rights. That does not mean, however, that people have the right to have their beliefs respected. Respect, IMO, is earned, not granted.

[Grateful for Hope]

87. Huh?

Where did I say that people have the right to demand respect for their beliefs?

It does seem that you have made up your mind about where you think I am coming from, and, you are doing an awful lot of interpretation based on this assessment.

This is really quite simple. Everyone has the right to their beliefs. Everyone also has the right to choose to discuss them or not.

It is disrespectful to try to force one's opinions about these beliefs on someone who chooses not to discuss them. It is also disrespectful to try to force one's beliefs on another.

People who post in the Religion/Theology forum obviously want to discuss their beliefs. It is also possible that some are interested in hearing about other's beliefs. This is not the case, however, for everyone here at DU.

[varkam]

105. It was implied in this paragraph:

However, I think that everyone has the right to their beliefs, whatever they may be. For instance, I get offended for Christians when I see someone post an expletive that denigrates their religion's definition of "God". But, because posters are expected to have "thick skins" when posting here, I also understand why such posts are allowed.

The "For instance" in the beginning of the second sentence primes the reader to expect a further explanation of what you meant by "everyone has the right to their beliefs, whatever they may be", but you do not go on to defend the right to merely have belief. Rather, you begin to talk about respecting beliefs (e.x. "I get offended for Christians when I see someone post an expletive that denigrates their religion's definition of "God"). That sort of thing has no connection to the right to have beliefs, which I tried to spell out in my previous post.

It does seem that you have made up your mind about where you think I am coming from, and, you are doing an awful lot of interpretation based on this assessment.

I have no idea where you're coming from or what you personally believe.

This is really quite simple. Everyone has the right to their beliefs. Everyone also has the right to choose to discuss them or not.

I agree - but that's not what you wrote.

It is disrespectful to try to force one's opinions about these beliefs on someone who chooses not to discuss them. It is also disrespectful to try to force one's beliefs on another.

Well, allow me to remove the gun from your head, then. Indeed, no one "forces" another to participate in discussion - certainly not here on Democratic Underground. You have to log in, read posts, and compose responses.

People who post in the Religion/Theology forum obviously want to discuss their beliefs. It is also possible that some are interested in hearing about other's beliefs. This is not the case, however, for everyone here at DU.

Actually, the reason that I participate in R/T is not so much to discuss my personal beliefs but rather simply because the subject material interests me. I think that you will find similar reasons for participation among the other folks there.

I'm sorry - I didn't realize that you wrote your original post with the intention that no one should respond to it. Perhaps in the future you should include a post-script directing those that read not to respond, or to only respond to certain portions. Or, perhaps equally effective, you might try not to be offensive regardless of your intentions.

Let's say, for example, that I post a racially charged message to the Gungeon. Someone, having read that message, calls me out on it. Does the response that "I do not participate in forums concerning race, so therefore I do not want to talk about it" seem sufficient to you?

[varkam]

83. In all honesty...

I don't think that there is any parallel that can be drawn. Science and religion rely on two completely different forms of cognition. Drawing a parallel between science and religion is a lot like drawing a parallel between cell phones and dolphins - there is really no relation to be had.

[Diane_nyc]

94. To clarify my question ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217572">varkam wrote:

86. In all honesty...

I don't think that there is any parallel that can be drawn. Science and religion rely on two completely different forms of cognition.

I'm thinking of emotional (not cognitive) parallels, not between religion and science themselves, but between a religious believer's feelings about God and your feelings about science.

What words would you use for your feelings about science?

[varkam]

106. It is my opinion...

that you can't discuss one without discussing the other. It is impossible to separate feelings and reason, as they drive one another.

[Diane_nyc]

108. I agree that feelings and reason are interconnected and "drive each other," but ...

... but feelings and reason are nevertheless distinct things, and can at least be named independently of each other.

Again, what words would you use to describe your feelings about science? Surely your feelings per se are not utterly beyond words?

On edit: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217610">In this post, you wrote:

I think science is sublimely inspiring. Correctly understood, at least for me, science drives - not hampers - imagination.

"Sublimely inspiring" is a start. Please continue.

[varkam]

119. Well, there you go: sublimely inspiring. eom

[Diane_nyc]

122. Like I said, that's a start. Any more words for your feelings about science? nt

[varkam]

123. Good. Fun. Nice.

?

[Diane_nyc]

125. Thanks. Are "awe" and "sense of wonder" appropriate words too? nt

[Diane_nyc]

126. Also is it appropriate to say that you "respect," "honor," and "highly value" science? nt

[varkam]

128. Sure. But not that I worship it. eom

[Diane_nyc]

129. Exactly. Next time someone says you worship it, you can now suggest better words.

That was my point here. To find better words.

[varkam]

130. That's really missing the point.

The point is to to ascribe "better words", but rather to correct the inherent misunderstanding what what science and the scientific method are. To me, to worship the scientific method is to botch the whole thing entirely. Worship is the polar opposite of scientific thinking.

[Diane_nyc]

137. Why can't you suggest better words IN ADDITION TO explaining what's wrong with "worship"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217643">varkam wrote:

The point is to to ascribe "better words", but rather to correct the inherent misunderstanding what what science and the scientific method are. To me, to worship the scientific method is to botch the whole thing entirely. Worship is the polar opposite of scientific thinking.

However, conversations are a two way street. Conversations don't consist of just you enlightening the other person. The other person would most likely be trying to make a point too. That being the case, it would behoove you to try to find out what the person's actual point was, and, if it's a valid point, suggest better words.

[varkam]

152. I know very well what point the other poster was trying to make...

as I have encountered it many times. It is an attempt to make religion and science equivalent - and it is wrong.

[Grateful for Hope]

153. Absolutely incorrect

Any idiot knows they are not equivalent. However, their respective importance to the people who embrace them...that, is a different story.

Your reaction to my original post suggests that I am not off base here, BTW.

Have the last word. Be my guest.

[varkam]

154. Weren't you done with this conversation five or six posts ago?

And that is precisely what you were doing with equivocating on the term "worship". It's a fairly popular tactic to try to cheapen what science is, and is almost always advanced by people who don't know what they are talking about.

And it's not that I'm afraid or anything - disingenuity offends me.

[Diane_nyc]

159. Why don't you ASK people what they mean, rather than assuming you know what they mean?

Different people may well mean a variety of different things by the same words. And asking people what they mean is a better way to get them to think about the issues, instead of just lecturing them.

[varkam]

160. The meaning...

wasn't exactly ambiguous in the following passage:

As an aside, I have also wondered about some who seem to "worship" scientific method in the same way that others "worship" their deities. Is it possible that humans have an innate need to look outside themselves for something or someone to diefy? (emphasis added)

I tried to discuss the fact that there are significant differences between the two, but was met with denial and evasion.

Are you done lecturing me, now?

[Diane_nyc]

161. "worship" and "deify"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217678">varkam wrote:

166. The meaning...

wasn't exactly ambiguous in the following passage:

As an aside, I have also wondered about some who seem to "worship" scientific method in the same way that others "worship" their deities. Is it possible that humans have an innate need to look outside themselves for something or someone to diefy? (emphasis added)

The meaning of this passage all hinges on what is meant by the word "deify," as well as the word "worship." That's not entirely clear. Looking up http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deify">the word "deify" on dictionary.reference.com:

to deify a beloved king.
2. to adore or regard as a deity: to deify wealth.]

Note that meaning #2 is similar to the nonreligious uses of the word "worship." It seems to me that the word "deify," like the word "worship," is often used simply to mean something like "hold in passionate high regard." The implication here is that all strong positive human emotions, including your own strong positive emotions about science, are somehow akin to worshiping a deity. In popular parlance, some people also use words like "divine" (as in "oh, that's divine!") to refer even to things like very tasty food.

And, obviously, science does exist at least primarily outside oneself; it is the work of many people, at most one of whom can be you.

The problems I see here are these: (1) The word "worship," for many people, also has connotations of subservience. (2) Some people (certainly not everyone) use their own conflation of all strong positive human emotion with "worship" to claim that such strong positive human emotions are evidence for the existence of God. Statements like Hope2006's are sometimes (not always) used as part of such arguments. (3) Some especially fanatical Christians (again, certainly not everyone) condemn all strong positive emotion, outside of a religiously approved context, as "idoloatry." And, yes, (4) some people (but, again, not everyone) use their conflation of all strong positive human enotion with "worship" to argue that an abstract love object (such as science) is akin to "God" in the "worshiper's" eyes in more ways than just being an abstract love object, and hence to argue that science, for example, is a "religion."

I'm sorry if you see this as a "denial" and "evasion." It's not.

If I were as passionate as you are about the differences between science and religion, I think I might have said something to Hope2006 like, "You seem to be equating science with religion here. If so, what do you see as the similarities between the two? By the way, please don't use the words 'worship' and "deify" to refer to my love of science. Whatever your intent in using those words, I find them offensive because ...."

Anyhow, you wrote:

Are you done lecturing me, now?

I'm sorry about the tone of my previous post. I was getting very frustrated with what looked like an endless circular impasse between you and Hope2006.

[varkam]

164. I say again...

"in the same way" tends to discount other interpretations.

[Diane_nyc]

166. People often say that two different things are "the same" ...

... when they really mean only that the two things are similar in some way (not necessarily in every way). Unless the specific alleged points of similarity are named or otherwise indicated, it is totally unclear what this means.

Anyhow, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217689">varkam wrote:

"in the same way" tends to discount other interpretations.

On the contrary, it is very unclear and allows for a vast multitude of conceivable interpretations. The only way to find out what it means is to ask, "What do you mean by 'in the same way'? What are the alleged similarities?"

[varkam]

173. Apparently you have not finished lecturing me.

when they really mean only that the two things are similar in some way (not necessarily in every way). Unless the specific alleged points of similarity are named or otherwise indicated, it is totally unclear what this means.

You know that I totally disagree with you on that. For example, saying that Christianity is a religion in the same way that Islam is a religion is fairly clear. It does not suggest that the two are identical to one another (hence the different words for "Christianity" and for "Islam"), but that statement does point out there there are significant similiarities between the two in terms of how they are viewed as religions.

In the offending paragraph, the similarity that was posited was how people "worship" and "deify" them. I contend that those words, at best, reflect a profound ignorance of how science works and is conducted and, at worst, is a smear. It is nothing new, and I have encountered it several times.

And even if I thought that the meaning were unclear, there is no similarity between religion and the scientific method (aside from the trivial, in any event - such as the fact that both involve people and nice things can be said about both, etc). Rather, for centuries and continuing into today, religion has been an anathema onto scientific progress (take, for example, reluctance to fully fund stem-cell research on the soft-headed assumption that life begins at conception).

Moreover, I, apparently, was not the only one who took the message in such a fashion. The meaning couldn't of been that ambiguous is multiple people took the exact same thing away from the message, correct?

[Diane_nyc]

175. Science and the multiple meanings of "religion"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217713">varkam wrote:

For example, saying that Christianity is a religion in the same way that Islam is a religion is fairly clear. It does not suggest that the two are identical to one another (hence the different words for "Christianity" and for "Islam"), but that statement does point out there there are significant similarities between the two in terms of how they are viewed as religions.

According to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion">the definitions of "religion" on dictionary.reference.com:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

Christianity and Islam are both religions by definitions # 1, 2, and 3 above. And nearly everyone recognizes this, except for those evangelical Christians who claim that "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship." For the more devout adherents of Christianity and Islam, they are also religions by definition #6.

Science, on the other hand, could conceivably be a "religion" only by definition #6, above, to the extent that scientific methodology is regarded as a matter of ethics or conscience.

Thus there is indeed some overlap between the senses in which Christianity and Islam are religions (at least for their more devout adherents) and the sense in which science can be a "religion" (for a conscientious scientist).

Back to your post:

In the offending paragraph, the similarity that was posited was how people "worship" and "deify" them.

And those words, as I already pointed out, are ambiguous. There are indeed some commonly accepted definitions of the words "worship" and "deify" that your feelings about science do, in fact, fit. You nevertheless find those words offensive, when applied to your feelings about science, because of their association with other meanings of those words, which represent things utterly different from science.

I contend that those words, at best, reflect a profound ignorance of how science works and is conducted and, at worst, is a smear.

A person who says that another person "worships," "deifies," and makes a "religion" of science could mean simply that the described person loves and respects science and makes scientific methodology a matter of ethics or conscience. In that case, the statement could be literally correct for the person described, in terms of the less common but still widely recognized meanings of the words "worship," "deify," and "religion." You could nevertheless object, rightly, that the statement is at least potentially misleading, because science is utterly different from the primary meanings of those words.

It is nothing new, and I have encountered it several times.

Only "several" times? That doesn't sound like a good statistical sample. Therefore, in my opinion, it's not very scientific of you to assume that you know what all people who say such things mean. It would be more scientific of you to ask.

And even if I thought that the meaning were unclear, there is no similarity between religion and the scientific method

As we have seen, for a conscientious scientist, science can fit definition #6 of the word "religion," though it's obviously very different from "religion" in other, more common senses of the word.

(aside from the trivial, in any event - such as the fact that both involve people and nice things can be said about both, etc)

Definition #6 of "religion" isn't quite that trivial.

Rather, for centuries and continuing into today, religion has been an anathema onto scientific progress (take, for example, reluctance to fully fund stem-cell research on the soft-headed assumption that life begins at conception).

Historically, the relationship between religion and science has actually been a little more ambiguous than that. See, for example:

• http://www.bede.org.uk/university.htm">Medieval Science, the Church and Universities on the "Bede's Library" site


• http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_tech_med.htm">Medieval Science and Medieval Religion: Use of Technology to Transcend the Sinful World on atheism.about.com

It is certainly true that today's religious right wing is a threat to science. By no means do all religious people support it, though.

Moreover, I, apparently, was not the only one who took the message in such a fashion. The meaning couldn't of been that ambiguous is multiple people took the exact same thing away from the message, correct?

The only people who participated in the subthread following http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217474">this post by Hope2006 are you, me, Hope2006, boloboffin, and SidDithers.

Anyhow, it's quite possible even for lots and lots and lots of people to misunderstand what another person is saying. Are you familiar with the controversy over Larry Silverstein's "pull it" remark, for example?

[varkam]

177. .

Thus there is indeed some overlap between the senses in which Christianity and Islam are religions (at least for their more devout adherents) and the sense in which science can be a "religion" (for a conscientious scientist).

Are you seriously advocating that one can call science a religion? To me, that cheapens the word religion down into unintelligibility. On that definition, indeed anything can be interpreted to be a religion. Political ideology, personal beliefs concerning society, hobbies, and on and on could be construed as such.

And those words, as I already pointed out, are ambiguous. There are indeed some commonly accepted definitions of the words "worship" and "deify" that your feelings about science do, in fact, fit. You nevertheless find those words offensive, when applied to your feelings about science, because of their association with other meanings of those words, which represent things utterly different from science.

No, they do not. I also find the song "Ave Maria" to be sublimely inspiring, but that does not mean that I worship or deify it.

A person who says that another person "worships," "deifies," and makes a "religion" of science could mean simply that the described person loves and respects science and makes scientific methodology a matter of ethics or conscience. In that case, the statement could be literally correct for the person described, in terms of the less common but still widely recognized meanings of the words "worship," "deify," and "religion." You could nevertheless object, rightly, that the statement is at least potentially misleading, because science is utterly different from the primary meanings of those words.


But then you're leaving out "in the same way". People do not deify gods and worship religion simply because they love it. There's a whole metaphysical system that needs to be accepted. For example, one cannot be a Christian (and consequently worship Jesus Christ) without accepting the proposition that, for example, Jesus Christ was the son of God.

Only "several" times? That doesn't sound like a good statistical sample. Therefore, in my opinion, it's not very scientific of you to assume that you know what all people who say such things mean. It would be more scientific of you to ask.

And what would you know about statistics or science? Nevertheless, I did not advance that as a scientific proposition. Rather, that comes from my personal experience.

Historically, the relationship between religion and science has actually been a little more ambiguous than that. See, for example:

I almost spit up my drink on my keyboard. The Church was fine with science, so long as it did not contradict basic assumptions of the faith - which was precisely my point. Galileo, for example, was threatened with execution unless he recanted the heliocentric theory, which he ultimately did - as that contradicted the biblical view that the Earth was actually the center of the universe. For many years now and continuing into today, there has been fervent opposition from religious corners towards the theory of evolution. Do you think it somewhat odd that the United States is among the most religious nations on the face of the planet, and yet has among the fewest people that subscribe to the theory of evolution?

In sum, the Church had no problem with science so long as science said what the church wanted it to say. That's not exactly friendly, IMO.

It is certainly true that today's religious right wing is a threat to science. By no means do all religious people support it, though.

Saying that religion is opposed to scientific progress and saying that religious people are opposed to scientific progress are two different things entirely. Could you point out where I said that "all religious people support" such hamstringing of science?

The only people who participated in the subthread following this post by Hope2006 are you, me, Hope2006, boloboffin, and SidDithers.

Multiple means two or more. If both myself and boloboffin took the same message away, then that would satisfy the definition of multiple, would it not?


Anyhow, it's quite possible even for lots and lots and lots of people to misunderstand what another person is saying. Are you familiar with the controversy over Larry Silverstein's "pull it" remark, for example?

Except that here, there is a context. Also note that Hope2006 did not offer any sort of alternative interpretation of their comments in either their conversations with me or with boloboffin even when confronted with them, leading one to believe that they were not mischaracterized.

In any event, I am finding myself quite bored with this discussion. You are free to continue to assert that I am wrong and have simply misinterpreted those comments, though you'll be lecturing to yourself.

:hi:

[Diane_nyc]

178. Hope2006 did indeed offer an alternative interpretation. (And my response on other points.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217743">varkam wrote:

Are you seriously advocating that one can call science a religion?

I'm not saying it's a good idea to call science a religion. However, for a conscientious scientist, science can indeed fit definition #6 of "religions," http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217731">as quoted in my previous post.

To me, that cheapens the word religion down into unintelligibility. On that definition, indeed anything can be interpreted to be a religion. Political ideology, personal beliefs concerning society, hobbies, and on and on could be construed as such.

Yes indeed, almost anything can be a "religion" by definition #6. However, like it or not, definition #6 is one of the accepted definitions of "religion." Human language is full of ambiguities of that kind.

You wrote, quoting me:

And those words, as I already pointed out, are ambiguous. There are indeed some commonly accepted definitions of the words "worship" and "deify" that your feelings about science do, in fact, fit. You nevertheless find those words offensive, when applied to your feelings about science, because of their association with other meanings of those words, which represent things utterly different from science.

No, they do not.

One of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/worship">the definitions of "worship" is "adoring reverence or regard," and the example given is "an excessive worship of business success."

Do you not have an adoring regard for science, just as some other people have an adoring regard for business success?

Further down on http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/worship">the dictionary.reference.com page, the information from the Online Etymological Dictionary is interesting:

worship (n.)
O.E. worðscip, wurðscip (Anglian), weorðscipe (W.Saxon) "condition of being worthy, honor, renown," from weorð "worthy" (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/worth">worth) + -scipe (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-ship">-ship). Sense of "reverence paid to a supernatural or divine being" is first recorded c.1300. The original sense is preserved in the title worshipful (c.1300). The verb is recorded from c.1200.

In short, the word "worship" originally meant just to hold someone or something in high regard. It did not originally refer to homage paid to supernatural or divine beings, specifically, although the latter meaning has subsequently come to be the most common meaning.

Further down on the page, one of WordNet's definitions of "worship" (noun form) is "2, a feeling of profound love and admiration." Do you not feel a profound love and admiration for science?

Further down, the Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary defines "worship" (verb) as "to pay great honour to" and "to love or admire very greatly."

Looking now at the http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deify">page of definitions of the word "deify":

One of the American Heritage Dictionary's definitions of "deify" is "3. To idealize; exalt" and the example given is "deifying success."

As I pointed out in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217680">a previous post, people can "deify" just about anything, even including good food.

Back to your latest post:

But then you're leaving out "in the same way". People do not deify gods and worship religion simply because they love it. There's a whole metaphysical system that needs to be accepted. For example, one cannot be a Christian (and consequently worship Jesus Christ) without accepting the proposition that, for example, Jesus Christ was the son of God.

Obviously science does not involve theology. But I think everyone knows that, including the people who say "in the same way." Thus, you could rightly object to the phrase "in the same way" as an overstatement of whatever similarities the person saying such a thing actually does see.

You wrote:

Only "several" times? That doesn't sound like a good statistical sample. Therefore, in my opinion, it's not very scientific of you to assume that you know what all people who say such things mean. It would be more scientific of you to ask.

And what would you know about statistics or science?

I've taken some statistics courses. How about you?

In college I began as a physics major and took two years of physics, though I ended up changing my major to electronic engineering. How about you?

I'm also aware, by the way, that good scientific methodology in the social sciences involves more than just sample sizes larger than "several" people and asking them questions. It also involves other precautions, such as double-blind tests. However, asking people questions is at least a little bit closer to a scientific approach than making dogmatic a priori assumptions about what people mean.

Nevertheless, I did not advance that as a scientific proposition. Rather, that comes from my personal experience.

Thanks for the clarification.

I would add that, in my opinion, it's a good idea not to be too dogmatic about things we know just from personal experience, especially with just a limited number of other people. If personal experience were a perfectly reliable guide, then scientific methodology would have no advantages over it, after all. I think it's a good idea to be aware of the limits of what one can know from personal experience, and, in accordance with this awareness, to be cautious about jumping to conclusions about other people.

The Church was fine with science, so long as it did not contradict basic assumptions of the faith - which was precisely my point. Galileo, for example, was threatened with execution unless he recanted the heliocentric theory, which he ultimately did - as that contradicted the biblical view that the Earth was actually the center of the universe.

Essentially correct, though a bit of an oversimplification. (Galileo's situation was complicated by a personal falling-out between him and an otherwise halfway open-minded Pope. See the Wikipedia article on Galileo for details.)

For many years now and continuing into today, there has been fervent opposition from religious corners towards the theory of evolution.

Mainly from Protestant fundamentalists, rather than from "religious corners" in general. The Catholic Church has pretty much accepted evolution by now, at least for the most part. (See http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18524">Evolution, not intelligent design, is fundamental Catholic teaching, Vatican Observatory director says by Mark Lombard, 1/31/2006, on Catholic Online. Nor do the more moderate and liberal Protestants have a problem with evolution, nor do mainstream Jews, nor do most people of most other religions, as far as I am aware.

The fundamentalist-dominated religious right wing's opposition to evolution is a very real and serious problem, but shouldn't be overstated.

Do you think it somewhat odd that the United States is among the most religious nations on the face of the planet, and yet has among the fewest people that subscribe to the theory of evolution?

Not odd at all, unfortunately, and, as I said, this is indeed a real and serious problem.

Saying that religion is opposed to scientific progress and saying that religious people are opposed to scientific progress are two different things entirely. Could you point out where I said that "all religious people support" such hamstringing of science?

You didn't say "all religious people." However, how can "religion" in general do something that most "religious people" don't do? It seems to me that only the most fundamentalist forms of only some religions are opposed to scientific progress, not that religion in general is opposed to scientific progress.

Multiple means two or more.

The one other person, besides you, who took Hope2006's message the way you did happens to be a person very prone to misunderstandings and jumping to conclusions about other people, as exemplified elsewhere in this thread.

Also note that Hope2006 did not offer any sort of alternative interpretation of their comments

Hope2006 did indeed offer an alternative interpretation http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217670">here.

[greyl]

181. "The one other person, besides you, who took Hope2006's message the way you did..."

Not true.

[Diane_nyc]

182. I was referring only those people who voiced a relevant opinion in this subthread, of course.

Obviously I would have no way of knowing the relevant opinions of those who didn't.

[greyl]

183. No kidding.

You probably shouldn't have made such a sweeping declarative statement based on a tiny sample.
:evilgrin:

[Diane_nyc]

184. My statement was not intended as a "sweeping declarative statement."

In http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217746">this post, my statement about "The one other person, besides you, who took Hope2006's message the way you did..." was intended only as a reference to the one such person who had voiced such an opinion in the subthread so far. It was not a claim about people who had not yet voiced an opinion one way or the other.

I had assumed that this would be clear from the context of the preceding several posts. Since it apparently wasn't clear to you, I will spell out the context:

• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217713">varkam had said here: "Moreover, I, apparently, was not the only one who took the message in such a fashion. The meaning couldn't of been that ambiguous is multiple people took the exact same thing away from the message, correct?"
  
  Note the word "apparently." An opinion is "apparent" only if it has been expressed thus far.


• In http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217731">my reply, I enumerated the people who had participated in the sub-thread thus far, only one of whom had voiced an opinion similar to varkam's.


• In http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217743">varkam's next post, varkam acknowledged that only one of the people I had enumerated, besides varkam, had voiced an opinion similar to varkam's. varkam then said "Multiple means two or more" (the two being varkam and the one other person).


• My statement about "the one other person, besides you, who took Hope2006's message the way you did" was in direct response to varkam's statement "Multiple means two or more."

Thus, varkam and I both were talking only about the set of people who had "apparently" confirmed varkam's impression, within the sub-thread. The set of people who night have agreed with varkam without having yet made their opinion "apparent," within the sub-thread, was irrelevant to our discussion.

I'm sorry if this wasn't clear.

I usually try to make my wording more self-contained, to avoid such misunderstandings. I'm sorry I didn't this time.

Anyhow, did you take http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217474">Hope2006's message the way varkam did? More importantly, do you persist in that impression (as varkam did), despite http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217670">Hope2006's clarification here?

[HamdenRice]

185. I wouldn't waste time with the classic strategic semantic nit pick tactic

It's not intended to advance the conversation. Notice it has absolutely no connection to the actual subject matter of the conversation. You're better off ignoring it.

[Diane_nyc]

186. Strategic nit picks, and why I usually DON'T ignore them.

In my experience, if you ignore a "strategic nitpick," your opponent is likely to smell blood and nag you about it again and again, at every opportunity. On the other hand, a thorough, precise, and detailed reply, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217841">such as I wrote here, usually puts a stop to it for good. (For example, grey1 has not replied to the above-mentioned post of mine.)

There are exceptions, of course.

[AZCat]

189. Actually, he's been out of town.

I wouldn't expect you to know his vacation schedule, but that's probably why greyl hasn't replied to your post.

[greyl]

190. Yes, you would. Too late anyway. nt

[greyl]

191. I only know about the words you chose - not your intentions.

Maybe you and I have different perceptions of what an :evilgrin: is designed to telegraph about intention.

[SidDithers]

75. Dawkins on theologians...

What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?

Free Inquiry, Spring 1998 v18 n2 p6(1)

A position that I happen to agree with.

Sid

[Diane_nyc]

176. Religion/theology and their impact on human social evolution

A belated response:

While none of what theologians say is demonstrably true, the statements of theologians have had practical consequences, both good and bad, in terms of the organization of communities. For an example of a good consequence, the drive for mass literacy and public education was motivated, in part, by the Protestant theological belief that all people were obliged to read the Bible for themselves.

In today's world, religion gives many poeple a sense of community that they don't find elsewhere. One can argue that it would be desirable for people to find that sense of community elsewhere. But many people don't, for whatever reasons.

Atheists are at a disadvantage, politically, because the vast majority of atheists are not organized as such. Only a small minority of atheists belong to organizations like American Atheists, the Council for Secular Humanism, the American Humanist Association, the Society for Ethical Culture, or the Freedom From Religion Foundation..

Furthermore, atheists tend to have fewer children than religious people. Other factors being equal, this would put atheists at a demographic disadvantage.

Thus, in evolutionary terms, theology and religion have had survival-enhancing consequences (though not consistently so, of course).

How can something which is not demonstrably true have beneficial consequences? Well, evolution is often messy in such paradoxical ways.

[Diane_nyc]

55. Polls showing bigotry against atheists

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217474">Hope2006 wrote:

One of the posters in the second thread indicated that there have been polls on trustworthiness, and, atheists always come out on the bottom.

Looking at that second thread, I see that http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=179974&mesg_id=179985">Union Thug wrote:

7. Atheists, according to 'the polls' are ranked as the least

trustworthy in society, or at least somewhere near the bottom of the heap. Geez, talk about disrespect.

But I wear this as a badge of honor, being myself an atheist. While the American screwhead christian right are lying us into wars, or preaching against homosexuality while humping meth-dealing male prostitutes, I cannot help but wonder what I and other American atheists have done that compares. And then I remember that religious zealots are all a bunch of... Wait. I'll stop their before I get myself in trouble. :-)

I've heard of these polls too. I'll see if I can dig up one of them later, if I have time.

[Diane_nyc]

57. Some specific polls

As promised in my previous post

- http://www.gallup.com/poll/106516/Americans-NetPositive-View-US-Catholics.aspx">Gallop poll, April 15, 2008
- http://www.religioustolerance.org/amer_intol.htm">Barna poll, 1995, as discussed on the Religious Tolerance site
- http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm">various polls, as discused by Austin Cline on atheism.about.com.

A related article: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/tabash_24_4.htm">Atheism is Indeed A Civil Rights Issue by Eddie Tabash, on the website of the Council for Secular Humanism.

Of course, no doubt it's a lot worse in the Bible Belt than in major coastal cities.

[varkam]

59. Here's a good one:

U of M poll finds atheists are particularly reviled:

link

[Diane_nyc]

62. Thanks. I would be very interested in your comments ...

... on some of the major points I've been trying to discuss here in this thread, such as the points http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217472">discussed here.

[Grateful for Hope]

64. thanks for digging this info up.

The polls certainly indicate that atheists are viewed unfavorably.

In this article:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist7.htm

I found this very disturbing:

Public office: Eight states (AR, MA, MD, NC, PA, SC, TN, and TX) have exclusionary language included in their Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights, official oath of office, or in the body of their constitutions. Most of them specifically exclude all Atheists and Agnostics from holding public office. These phrases are historical relics, left over from earlier times. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution supersedes these statutory laws and sections of state constitutions. It thus nullifies the effect of the above clauses. Still, it would be almost impossible to get citizens of any of these states to amend their constitution to end the religious discrimination.

There is no excuse for this type of discrimination. None.

I also noticed that favorable attitude toward Muslims has been declining, and, wonder if this is a by-product of 9/11, and, if so, if the Religious Right has been instrumental in feeding this decline.

[jberryhill]

72. Umm.....

I've long maintained that "9/11 truth" is used as a recruiting technique by purveyors of larger far-right conspiracy stuff, viz:

http://www.illuminati-and-911.com/

You don't have to go far to find folks taking the line that the 9/11 "inside job" was to advance the "New World Order" promulgated by those who think there are Freemasons living under their beds.

[Diane_nyc]

82. The extreme right wing and various political movements

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217537">jberryhill wrote:

73. Umm.....

I've long maintained that "9/11 truth" is used as a recruiting technique by purveyors of larger far-right conspiracy stuff

The 9/11 Truth movement certainly did not start out that way. It was founded by progressives such as Nicholas Levis, a.k.a. JackRiddler here. However, it was to a large degree coopted by the Alex Jones crowd and other extreme right wingers.

The 9/11 Truth movement is far from the only political movement which has been used this way by right wingers. A lot of right wingers also show up at anti-war rallies, for example. However, the anti-war movement seems to be dominated by Communists, at least here in New York.

You don't have to go far to find folks taking the line that the 9/11 "inside job" was to advance the "New World Order" promulgated by those who think there are Freemasons living under their beds.

Yep, and this sort of thing pisses me off on quite a few different levels.

I've run into plenty of this sort of thing at anti-war events too. Have you ever been to an anti-war rally?

[LARED]

86. I think you are ignoring a unpleasant reality

The reality of diverse political views is that as one moves further along the left wing heading left, and along the right further right, there tends to be more and more overlap of ideology. Usually radical in nature.

What I'm saying is there are many right wingers and Libertarian types are not using the 9/11 truth movement, they are firmly members of the faithful.

[jberryhill]

88. Yes, I've been to plenty...

Why do you ask?

Long family history of it, in fact....

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1203-05.htm

[Diane_nyc]

98. What's your personal take on the various kinds of right wingers ...

... who show up at anti-war rallies?

(if indeed they do show up at anti-war rallies in your neck of the woods).

[jberryhill]

118. Locally? None

But since we are 50 minutes by train to DC, I've seen all sorts of folks at demonstrations in DC as long as I can remember (Central American stuff in the 1980's to date; although my brother made it to the April 23 1970 demonstration re: Vietnam).

Our nutters tend to hang out at the DMV.

[Diane_nyc]

145. Have you noticed any changes, over the years ...

... in the kinds of right wing ideologies you've encountered at anti-war rallies?

[LARED]

80. Exactly when did the Bavarian Illuminati

of the 17th century and anti-illumnists of the time who opposed them, get connected to modern day progressive movements and those that have opposing views. Outside of your blogs there is scant mention of this meme.

People and organizations today largely equate the illuminate within the framework of most CT's. i.e an all powerful secret organization that has influence over world affairs. Having nothing to do with atheism.

What you seem to be doing is attempting to create a new bogey-man that can be sold as originating from the right.

[Diane_nyc]

91. Tim LaHaye, leading anti-Illuminist, clearly singles out atheists as his main villains

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=217381&mesg_id=217568">Lared wrote:

83. Exactly when did the Bavarian Illuminati

of the 17th century and anti-illumnists of the time who opposed them, get connected to modern day progressive movements and those that have opposing views. Outside of your blogs there is scant mention of this meme.

Your wording above is unclear. I assume you're asking about the meme that various progressive movements are just a tool of the Illuminati for nefarious ends?

These past several years, that particular aspect of anti-Illuminism has been downplayed by Alex Jones et al. But, historically, it has long been a part of anti-Illuminism. And it's still very much a part of the leading form of anti-Illuminism, i.e. the religious right wing's version, which can be found primarily in books (e.g. by Pat Robertson and Tim LaHaye) rather than online.

The earliest anti-Illuminist writings, written back in the late 1700's and early 1800's, blamed the Bavarian Illuminati for the French Revolution and treated its ideals of "liberty, equality, and fraternity" as just an evil tool.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, plagiarized in part from these early anti-Illuminist writings, treated "democracy" as just a tool in a plot by the "Elders of Zion" for world domination. In fact, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion seems to have been intended primarily as royalist anti-democratic propaganda, rather than primarily as anti-Jewish propaganda. It used already-existing popular hatred of Jews to attack democracy.

Subsequent forms of anti-Illuminism were, in turn, largely plagiarized from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Starting in the 1970's or so, the big overarching bugaboo of the religious right wing has been "Secular Humanism," which means primarily atheism but is also associated with various non-Christian religions, plus also various modern political and social movements such as feminism and gay rights. For example, according to http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5601&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=cs_">this page on the website of Americans United for Separation of Church and State:

LaHaye's political beliefs are perhaps best summed up in a less well-known book that probably few "Left Behind" fans have read: 1980's The Battle for the Mind. In the book, LaHaye asserts that "secular humanists" have taken control of all American institutions, including public schools and universities, the political system, the news media and the entertainment industry, with the aim of driving Christianity from American life and creating a totalitarian state - themes that rebound in "Left Behind."

The goals of humanists, according to LaHaye, is to create an "Orwellian Big Brother complex, which will enable the elite humanists to merge America with the Soviet Union and all other countries. This will culminate in the humanist dream of a one-world, socialist state."

In 2001 LaHaye, undoubtedly hoping to capitalize on his newfound popularity, updated and reissued The Battle for the Mind under the name Mind Siege. The new version backs off from claims that humanists plan to merge the United States with the Soviet Union since there is no more Soviet Union but continues to insist that humanists run all influential institutions and labor to create a global superstate.

Conspiracy-theory thinking and contempt for religions that differ from fundamentalist Christianity run through LaHaye's non-fiction works. His 1983 book The Battle for the Public Schools contains a drawing of a tree whose trunk is labeled "Secular Humanism." Some of its roots are labeled "Hinduism," "Buddhism," "Taoism" and "Confucianism." Branches and leaves coming off of the tree are labeled "Crime," "Divorce," "Abortion," "Homosexuality," "Rape," "V.D.," "Public Schools" and "Liberal Politicians."

Humanist leaders in the United States are alternately amused and horrified by LaHaye's smear campaign against them. "Tim LaHaye blames secular humanists for everything from communism to bad breath," Edward M. Buckner, executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism in Amherst, N.Y., told Church & State. "LaHaye's paranoid ravings and conspiracy theories about humanists running the world would be amusing but for one thing: He is stirring up hatred against an entire class of people based on their belief system and worldview. That's not funny."

Anyhow, back to Lared's post:

People and organizations today largely equate the illuminate within the framework of most CT's. i.e an all powerful secret organization that has influence over world affairs. Having nothing to do with atheism.

As we have seen, Tim LaHaye, one of today's leading anti-Illuminists, clearly singles out atheists (a.k.a. "secular humanists") as his leading villains. (In real life, people who call themselves "secular humanists" are nearly always atheists. The Council for Secular Humanism is an organization for atheists.)

What you seem to be doing is attempting to create a new bogey-man that can be sold as originating from the right.

I sure as heck didn't create Tim LaHaye.

As I mentioned earlier, Alex Jones tends to downplay the more bigoted aspects of anti-Illuminism, in favor of a more generic populism. But the bigoted stuff can be found even on Alex Jones's sites, though sort of hidden away. For example, Prison Planet has an article by Henry Makow titled "Gloria Steinem: How the CIA Used Feminism to Destabilize Society" (an article which runs wild with the fact that Gloria Steinem once directed an organization that took money from the CIA). There's also a bunch of similar stuff, also by Makow, about how the gay rights movement is the tool of an evil elite conspiracy.

Within the past several years, there has been a growth in the more generic populist form of anti-Illuminism, with relatively little overt bigotry of any kind. That's a new development. Frankly it worries me, because it seems to me that the spread of the less overtly bigoted forms lays groundwork for the spread of the more bigoted (and still most prevalent, at least offline) forms.

[Diane_nyc]

112. Pat Robertson, another leading anti-Illuminist, explicitly singles out atheists too.

According to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n26_v112/ai_17497869">an article about Pat Robertson in the Christian Century, by Ephraim Radner, Sept 13, 1995, regarding Robertson's book The New World Order:

The New World Order was written principally to condemn the United Nations' command authority during the gulf war. Robertson presents a sweeping warning about an age-old conspiracy designed to control world politics and economics. In Robertson's view, the conspirators belong to a secret "society" led by satanic atheists and financial "money barons."

Note the mention of "Satanic atheists."

[Diane_nyc]

115. The John Birch Society: A major influence on Tim LaHaye and Pat Robertson

The John Birch Society, founded in 1958, is a major source of today's anti-Illuminism. On the John Birch Society's website, a page titled "Remembering Robert Welch" says:

First, he concluded that the Conspiracy is more deeply rooted than he had previously thought, and supported this thesis by tracing its origins back over a century to an occult group known as the Illuminati, founded on May 1, 1776 by a Bavarian named Adam Weishaupt. Tenaciously tracking back through the pages of obscure books and dusty old documents, he found that this conspiratorial band had participated in the French Revolution of 1789, which infamous uprising, as we know, struck out with intense savagery against God and civilization and resulted in the murder of roughly a million human beings. Clearly, the upheavals and atrocities of 1789 served as a model for revolutions to come, especially the Bolshevik Revolution.

But the French Revolution did not achieve its objectives. It did not result in the complete overthrow of the existing order in Europe. Traditional ways of life persisted and gradually returned even to France. Still, the conspirators, he found, were not discouraged. Instead, they maintained their secrecy and determined to wait until more favorable situations presented themselves. Throughout the 19th century several offshoots of the original Illuminati were formed, some of which eventually coalesced into the communist conspiracy of our own time. Mr. Welch stated that communism is a tool used by the Conspiracy to demolish traditional patterns of life, beliefs, systems, and cultural mores. When these phenomena endure, in spite of subversion and persecution, they make it impossible for the Conspiracy to triumph.

Note the "Conspiracy's" alleged desire to "demolish traditional patterns of life, beliefs, systems, and cultural mores." Also, the John Birch Society's slogan is "Standing for Family and Freedom" (with "Family" interpreted in a religious right wing way). And indeed the JBS seems to have been an early precursor to today's religious right wing.

I don't yet know whether and to what extent Robert Welch singled out atheists. However, the amphasis on "traditional patterns of life, beliefs, systems, and cultural mores" is implicitly an attack on all American non-Christians (including atheists and most likely Jews), and also on feminists and gays.

Tim LaHaye was involved in the John Birch Society. According to http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/5939999/reverend_doomsday/">a Rolling Stone article about Tim LaHaye, by Robert DreyfussPosted Jan 28, 2004:

For years, LaHaye spoke at Birch Society training sessions, getting to know many of its leaders and building his ministry in the part of California that, twenty years later, would be the launching pad for Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential bid.

Pat Robertson was at least strongly influenced by the John Birch Society. (I'm not sure to what extent he was involved in the JBS as an organization.) According to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n26_v112/ai_17497869">an article about Pat Robertson in the Christian Century, by Ephraim Radner, by Sept 13, 1995:

Robertson presents a sweeping warning about an age-old conspiracy designed to control world politics and economics. In Robertson's view, the conspirators belong to a secret "society" led by satanic atheists and financial "money barons." According to the evidence he marshals, these conspirators have taken over international banking and American academic and cultural institutions, and have carefully planned to use the UN and Federal Reserve Bank to impose upon the globe a "one-world" government. The real purpose of the conspiracy, however, is the destruction of American Christian culture and of Christianity itself.

ROBERTSON TRACES the historical progress of this conspiracy, back to Lucifer and his machinations in antiquity. In the modem era the conspiracy has been promoted through a small secret society founded in late 18th-century, Bavaria called the Illuminati, whose members purportedly infiltrated Freemasonry, organized the French Revolution, recruited Friedrick Engels and other communists to their cause and orchestrated the Bolshexik takeover of Russia. Through their control of international banking, the Illuminati-dominated servants of Satan, according to Robertson, have imposed a system of national and private credit and interest that has saddled the nation with debilitating and enslaving debt, robbing the American people at once of their independence and their control over their religious life.

While the Illuminati conspiracy theory waned for a century or so after its heyday in the late 18th and 19th centuries, it revived when shifting economic and cultural pressures led to the scapegoating of certain groups such as the Freemasons and the Jews. Robertson's critics rightly focus on the connection the theory has had with aggressively anti-Semitic propaganda. Anti-Semitic versions of the Illuminati conspiracy were developed and promoted in the U.S. in this century a number of extremist political organizations, notably the John Birch Society.

[Lost-in-FL]

92. I can honestly say...

ZZZZZZZzzzzzz :boring:

[End Of The Road]

187. I don't think the evangelicals are a big threat

They have been USED. Used to demonize liberals, and used by candidates to get elected. But once elected, what, really, have those candidates done to advance the causes of the religious right?

What I find more threatening is the IDEA that evangelical Christians represent mainstream America. I don't know whether I'm really hearing more of that in the last decade, or whether I'm just more sensitive to it now that I'm getting old and gray.

[Diane_nyc]

188. Religious right wing != "the evangelicals"

Not all evangelicals support the religious right wing. Some evangelicals do have more reasonable attitudes.

On the other hand, the religious right wing is supported by more than just its evangelical supporters. It's also supported by many conservative Catholics and ultra-Orthodox Jews.

Anyhow, the religious right wing has succeeded in blocking lots of gay rights legislation in many places around the country, especially same-sex marriage.

It has also influenced the selection of U.S. Supreme Court judges.

And every now and then it succeeds, at least temporarily, in promoting the teaching of creationism or "intelligent design" in Bible Belt public schools. And, if I recall correctly, it has succeeded in intimidating some school districts into avoiding the topic of evolution.

Be that as it may, the religious right wing has played a substantial role in many Republican victories over the past thirty years or so. And this, in itself, should be of concern to progressives, even when the resulting elected officials have paid little more than lip service to the religious right wing's agenda.