Want to marginalize religious nut jobs?

[LTRS]

Obviously that needs to happen. Unfortunately, dems have been kowed into not talking about faith when they should be talking about it more than ever. Here's what I think it's going to take:

1. Make "fundamentalist Christian" an undesirable term to identify with . The dems have to have the cajones to change the vocabulary -- call them what they are "fundamentalist extremists" Extremists, extremists, extremists. Every dem politician should parrot that word over and over and over again when describing the so-called Christian right.

2. Paint a vivid picture Give vivid examples of their extremism. Talk about dominionists who loathe democracy and want to see those that disagree with them jailed or executed; quote the nutty things Robertson and Falwell say; quote all the nut jobs, including the Santorums, and Delays and say "The American people reject extremism in any form."

3. Talk about the fact that "extremists" have hijacked mainstream Christianity in this country and rejected its message. Remind people that authentic Christians hold values that mirror the democratic party's priorities -- to protect our children and seniors, fight poverty, protect the environment, and treat your "neighbor" with compassion. Talk about the fact that the republican party and their extremist supporters reject those ideals, and instead believe in protecting only the wealthy and corporations. Values, values, values! Let's REALLY talk about them.

"The bible doesn't talk about giving tax cuts to the wealthy, protecting the profits of corporations from people in debt because of medical bills, cutting social security, your right to an assault rifle, and persecuting gays -- all of which are high priority in the republican agenda. Those aren't the values of authentic Christians - they are political talking points."

4. Talk about how Republicans have used Christianity -- hijacked it -- as a cynical stepping stone to power. The message here is that calling yourself a Christian does not make it so -- actions speak louder than words. So called "Christian" extremists are using Christianity to advance purely political goals that bear no resemblance to the teachings of the bible.

Dems must get over their fear of "offending" religious people with the truth. The fact is that much of the democratic party agenda mirrors the teachings of the bible, and my guess is most real Christians would realize that if dems simply reminded them of it.

[Warren DeMontague]

1. How about reminding folks that the "pro-life" movement wants to

criminalize the birth control pill?

[LTRS]

Exactly!

That's an excellent example of their extremism. We have to point out one example after another, without let up. Paint them as far, far out of the mainstream, because that is what they are. Only then will the mainstream stop identifying with them and supporting them out of a false belief that they share their so called values.

[DemBones DemBones]

12. That's inaccurate. SOME in the pro-life movement would

like to re-criminalize contraception, which was a crime in most if not all states less than a hundred years ago.

SOME are particularly concerned about birth control pills.

But the National Right to Life Committee, which I think is the largest pro-life organization, has no mention of contraception on its web pages that I could find. I just went there and searched extensively.

SOME of us who are pro-life think better contraception through better education and wider availability of contraceptives is part of the way to make abortion rare. Another part is to provide financial support for mothers and young children so that no woman ever feels she has to abort for economic reasons.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. Most National "Pro-Life" organizations DON'T REGARD the pill as

"contraception".

The consider the pill to be an abortifacent, because it can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. Ergo, it is a potential "murder weapon".

And yeah, "contraception was illegal in most states 100 years ago" Uh. And?... is that some kind of justification for the people working to return us to those hallowed days? Shit, Slavery was the norm not too long ago, as well. Great.

Actually, if you read the thinking behind the legislative agenda of the Talibornagain wing of the so-called "pro-life" community, the SCOTUS decision that really has their panties in a wad is not Roe v. Wade, but rather Griswold v. Connecticut-- because not only did it say that married couples have the right to use birth control (opening the door to all this rampant f*cking that they're so upset about) but it also established that pesky right to privacy that they HATE so much.. And this was just 40 odd years ago, not 100.. (So, yes, birth control is very much on SOME pro-lifers' agenda, at least the far right religious extremists- who are also the subject of this thread.)

I agree, there are SOME pro-lifers who are pro-contraception and who understand that this is the area where we all SHOULD be able to agree- safely preventing pregnancy is preferable to abortion..

Unfortunately, and I'm not the first person to notice this.... y'all are pretty few and far between.

Google "birth control pill" and "pro-life" and you'll see what I mean.

http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-bcpill.html

http://www.aaplog.org/collition.htm


Anyway, I see that the "national right to life committee" is committed to being anti-science on the issue of stem cells. My close relative suffering from CP thanks them alot for their head-in-the-sand neo-luddism. If I had more time, I would ask them if they are ideologically consistent enough to oppose IVF clinics, which produce far more embryos than can possibly be implanted. (Of course, IVF is a popular technology, so, like the birth control pill deal, many pro-lifers hide that aspect of the agenda.)

[DemBones DemBones]

41. I don't think that most pro-lifers believe that birth control pills are

abortefacients though I apologize that I didn't address that issue. You are right that some are concerned about the pill's potential for causing an abortion by preventing implantation. Since that's not the way the pill is designed to work and, as far as I know, is an uncommon side effect, I still look at the pill as contraception, as do all the pro-lifers I know, most of whom are not opposed to contraception, even though most of them are Catholic.

Polls indicate that only about a third of all American Catholics accept the Church's teaching on contraception. Frankly, I'm surprised it's that high but then I'm not sure the polls address whether they personally practice the Church's teaching or simply agree with it in principle. Any Catholic can tell you that parishes today are made up of families with one, two, or three children, rarely more than three, with those that have three usually having had two kids of the same sex and then getting the opposite sex on the third try. Catholics use contraception as much as anyone else. But it must be noted that pro-life groups that are predominantly Catholic will likely oppose contraception in their official statements. I doubt seriously that the official group opposition is shared by all the members, though.

Many extreme Protestants are opposing all contraception today and having large families, as are some extreme Catholics (think Mel Gibson.) I think there are numericaly more extreme Protestants than extreme Catholics, however, but have no numbers on that. Mormons also typically have large families and may oppose contraception, too.

You're making a big deal out of my saying "less than 100 years ago" so I'll try again. ;-)

As I recall, contraception was illegal in many states, perhaps all, until the 1930s or later. That's less than 100 years ago but within the lifetime of people who are still alive and voting today. Hell, I've been out of high school forty years myself so the Thirties, though before my time, don't seem that long ago. I think the fact that no one approved of contraception (which is not to say they didn't use it!) back then does have an influence today. Edit: What I'm getting at here is that when a practice previously regarded as sinful becomes accepted, it has more negative effects on society than when it was regarded as sinful. For example, people hardly are shocked at all by adultery today and it frequently leads to divorce, with all the negative effects on children. We were better off as a society when adultery was a taboo and when abortion was a taboo. Adultery and abortion always existed but they weren't regarded as being acceptable, whereas now many people act as if they're not just acceptable but desirable.

The Episcopal/Anglican Church was the first church to formally say contraception was OK. That approval, which sent shock waves, came in 1937, if I recall correctly (it's been a while since I read up on this issue.) At any rate, Pius XI was still Pope and he wrote about this acceptance of contraception, if it became widespread, being the start of a slippery slope which would lead to widespread acceptance and use of abortion and then to euthanasia, with a lot of divorce and other misery thrown in along the way. When I first read that statement some thirty years ago, I thought he was nuts and completely wrong. Now I think he was quite right, though I still support contraception and don't see how modern societies can manage without it, no longer needing the large families that were valued in pre-industrial times. Abortion and euthanasis concern me greatly because I believe they damage us all as human beings.

For what it's worth, I have multiple chronic diseases myself, a couple of them life-threatening and likely to vie to be the cause of my eventual death, but I don't support embryonic stem cell research. Even if it could cure me -- which I seriously doubt as it has been greatly over-hyped and cures are still a long way off -- I don't want to be cured at the expense of another life. My good friend with CP feels the same way. It's a moral issue for us, as abortion and euthanasia are for many disabled people who know where the trend toward killing "defective" humans in utero could lead. It was science that turned me against abortion; I finally had to stop denying what I knew: that from conception on, there is a new human being that meets the biological criteria for identifying a living thing. Being Catholic came later, as is the case with my friend with CP, and neither of us converted solely because of abortion.

As for IVF, I don't think they should create more embryos in vitro than will be implanted.

[FizzFuzz]

63. abortion and adultery are good

<What I'm getting at here is that when a practice previously regarded as sinful becomes accepted, it has more negative effects on society than when it was regarded as sinful. For example, people hardly are shocked at all by adultery today and it frequently leads to divorce, with all the negative effects on children. We were better off as a society when adultery was a taboo and when abortion was a taboo. Adultery and abortion always existed but they weren't regarded as being acceptable, whereas now many people act as if they're not just acceptable but desirable.>

That's a pretty broad brush statement and I resent it. I don't know anyone who is pro choice and pro birth control who think abortion and adultery are just fine. I DO think its JUST FINE for women to have the same ownership of their bodies that men enjoy.

I DO know of plenty of irresponsable people, and I sure read about plenty of RW pukes, who are anti choice and who DO think adultery and other disgusting transgressions against their sexual objects is JUST FINE, as long as they can get away with it.

How either gender deals with their personal moral code is not to be forced upon one gender only by dire consequences enforced by legislation and witholding medical solutions.

And don't even get me started on deciding that a group of undifferentiated cells takes precedence over a living breathing human being. If you feel its god's decision that you live with chronic illness rather than conduct scientific research that could cure untold suffering for millions of people, because you IMAGINE a blastocyst to be equivalent to a human being, because in YOUR belief system, the fertilization equals ensoulment, then live with your chronic disease and go ahead and feel virtuous about that. But you have no right to force the rest of us to suffer by preventing scientific advancement. And by the way, you have no problem with IVF as long as only enough blastocysts are created to satisfy implantation-- You need to realize that the procedure itself requires fertilizing several eggs; there is always a question of how many fertilizations will "take", and therefore the procedure REQUIRES fertilizing more than are actually intended for impantation. There is NO SUCH THING as creating only enough for implantation. (IOW, One, since multiparous births are, in god's plan, a rarity and ought not to be artificially created.)

But then that brings me to IVF itself and the god and MORALS question. Excuse me, but that is a mechanical intervention into god's territory. If a couple is infertile, shouldn't they take that as god's decision that they will not bear children? Maybe they could adopt one of those unwanted babies the anti-birth control, anti-choice people are so eager to cause to be produced?

[sandnsea]

20. Part of the solution

or part of the problem. You're going to have to choose. The Catholic Church is against all contraception because it sometimes causes abortion, in part, and has spread that line to many pro-lifers as well. If your Catholicism is more important than religious freedom, fine. You've chosen.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Actually, the catholic church doesn't give a damn whether contraception

can mess with a fertilized egg, or not. They don't want anyone having any kind of orgasm, period, unless it is for the express purpose of creating another human being within the bounds of holy wedlock.

[DemBones DemBones]

46. You are completely wrong about that. The Catholic Church teaches that

sex is a great good between marriage partners for their entire lives, long after chilbearing is possible.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. Okay. What about masturbation? Sex within marriage with birth control?

Condoms?

Maybe they make an exception for married people who can't have kids anymore, but that's the only one- hardly making me "completely wrong".

[DemBones DemBones]

50. Catholic teaching that sex is a great good between marriage partners

kind of excludes solo acts, obviously, though I don't think masturbation is made an issue by many priests today, any more than most priests today make an issue of contraception or any other sex-related issue. Abortion is about killing far more than about sex and, as I already said, is still rarely preached about in most parishes.


Added on edit: And since what you first said was "They don't want anyone having any kind of orgasm, period, unless it is for the express purpose of creating another human being within the bounds of holy wedlock," I maintain that my statement that you were completely wrong was correct. It's simply untrue that Catholics are taught that only a sex act that results in a baby is moral. As a matter of fact, a dozen years ago, I read a book by a bishop (complete with imprimatur and nihil obstat) that talked a lot about oral sex being allowable in marriageand even specifically said oral sex was a good way to enjoy marital bliss during the wife's fertile days, when intercourse could lead to pregnancy. (Natural Family Planning, NFP, the updated, improved form of the rhythm method, is now taught in workshops.)

[FizzFuzz]

61. Heard about the paraplegic that the Catholic Church is refusing to marry?

I guess sex within marriage is good for the life of that marriage only if the marriage starts out between two young, fertile people capable of initiating efforts to reproduce. Paralytics, impotent men, people incapable of breeding for whatever reason, and women past menopause are right out--no marriages for you.

Of course, a 70 year old man marrying and impregnating a 20 year old woman would be just fine.

[DemBones DemBones]

49. You seem to want to speak for me. I understand

Catholic teaching against contraception, I just don't agree with it entirely, and I certainly don't think it concerns me if other people use contraceptives. Therefore my Catholicism is not more important than religious freedom to me.

Abortion concerns me, and should concern everyone, because it takes lives. It's a moral issue, not simply a religious one. As I have explained many times before, it was my knowledge of biology that made me admit to myself that abortion does end a human life, no matter how early the abortion occurs. I did not become a Catholic for some time after realizing that I could no longer support abortion on demand, and I did not become a Catholic because of the abortion issue. In fact, I wouldn't call myself pro-life for some years after becoming Catholic.

I won't be part of a "solution" that supports any form of killing, whether it's abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment or war.

[sandnsea]

68. Ah, splitting hairs again

Birth control pills can cause blastocysts to not implant, you knew that right? How can you, as a Catholic of good conscience, take no position on that?

And how can you differentiate between the blastocysts that pass because of pills and blastocysts that pass naturally? And if we don't mourn each menstrual cycle, just in case, then there isn't anything particularly immoral about the passing of "life", is there? It's natural, we accept it.

The only thing that really bothers anybody is that a woman makes the choice. Is isn't like anybody is trying to end all abortions, they're just trying to take the decision away from the woman.

It is outrageous that women are put in the position of defending contraceptive choices. You either stand against it, with no equivocation, or you're part of the problem.

[Clark2008]

76. You seem to want to piss on a religion because of what its

leaders say.

So.. do you also want to piss on the United States because Bush is an asshat?

We don't mourn each menstrual cycle because it's NOT fully DNA'd (yeah, made up a word). I defend contraceptive choices, but I also defend the freedom to choose religion.

CHILL.

[sandnsea]

77. Nonsense

Either you're not Catholic or you're ignoring Catholic teachings. Life begins at conception.

DemBones knows exactly what I'm saying. She knows I am not pissing on Catholicism, rather her attempts to skirt the truth when the Church takes a position that is against all sanity. Catholicism has led the way on this anti-contraceptive, anti-morning after prescription crusade. Switching the debate to pro-life is disinegenuous and manipulative on her part and she knows it.

If she disagrees with the Church on this issue, she should say so. If she doesn't, but knows the argument against pills is so weak as to be laughable, and switches to a "pro-life movement" stance to avoid criticizing the Church, then she's a hypocrite.

When people like her have run people like me out of the Church, I have every right to call her on her hypocrisy. And I will not "chill".

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Oh... and I STRONGLY SUSPECT that the "National Right To Life Committee"

supports the Human Life Amendment as it has been written in the GOP platform for decades. The Human Life Amendment which would define life as beginning at conception and grant rights under the fourteenth amendment to such. THe HLA which would turn the birth control pill into a controlled substance or a potential murder weapon, because it can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg (or "human being")

the Nat'l Right-to-life Committee has THIS to say about "when life begins":

When Does Life Begin?
The life of a baby begins long before he or she is born. A new individual human being begins at fertilization, when the sperm and ovum meet to form a single cell.

If they support the HLA, they support criminalizing the pill, plain and simple. And furthermore, mere omission of the mention of the pill does NOT mean that they support it remaining legal. Don't believe me? Why don't you contact your local or some of these national "pro-life" orgs and ask them to issue a public statement saying they support the legality of safe, effective contraception, including the birth control pill.

I will eat my fucking hat if even ONE organization does so.

[DemBones DemBones]

51. As H.L. Mencken used to reply to his critics:

"You may be right."

I trust you get the implied message.

[jmowreader]

53. DemBones, this shit's not about making abortion rare

This is about controlling women. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Women aren't supposed to be able to make free choices about their bodies and lives.

Women aren't supposed to be able to decide what's the best time for them to bear children.

They're not supposed to be able to decide whether they want children at all.

Or how many.

They're not supposed to work outside the home and take a man's place in the workforce.

Women are supposed to bear as many children as their husband wants, when their husband wants them.

In The Road to Wellville, Eleanor Lightbody said she wanted to be more than a hole in the mattress that answers to a name. This is true. They're supposed to be a hole in the mattress that answers to a name, cleans the house, has dinner ready when husband comes home, and pops out sons on demand.

Come on. Didn't you get the memo?

That's EXACTLY what these nutjobs want, and we've got to stop them.

[Coastie for Truth]

58. I am a pro-life leftie

BUT--
1. I respect the "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses of the First Amendment -- and I do not try to use the force of statutory, man-made, law to "establish" my faith on anybody. Leviticus says you can't eat pork - or bacon wrapped shrimps.

Legal, safe, legal, rare, legal

2. I really don't understand how "stem cell research" is equated to "abortion."

When "life begins" is a biological question - and is highly definitional, and is sometime after conception. I would go so far as to say it is well after the ATP <-> ADP cycle begins, after definition of neural canal stem cells, and after the temporal lobes are detectable in an EEG scan.

But it's an irrelevant

Really two questions--------


1. When does "life begin" for attachment of protection of the criminal law?

2. When does "life begin" for the protection of conscience and non-statutory morality by each individual and each individual community of faith

My "community of faith" teaches it is permissible to sacrifice an unborn fetus to potentially save many lives --- and that stem cell research is therefore permitted. To use the force of law to say that my community of faith is "wrong" is a violation of the "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses of the First Amendment - and if I really wanted to flame I would say it is heresy, blasphemy, and taking God's name in vain.

As a faith based leftie, raised by my faith based leftie clergyman grand dad, I do agree with you that

SOME of us who are pro-life think better contraception through better education and wider availability of contraceptives is part of the way to make abortion rare. Another part is to provide financial support for mothers and young children so that no woman ever feels she has to abort for economic reasons.

[LTRS]

67. Would it be rude of me to point out that....

stem cells are NOT unborn fetuses? Sorry, it just bugs the heck out me when people imply that a unfertilized egg equals a fetus.

[Coastie for Truth]

69. Not at all

I really don't care what stem cells are called.

It bugs the heck out of me when people want to give stem cells in a Petri dish (or in a liquid nitrogen cylinder) greater governmentally protected civil rights then a born alive, sentient human being has.

There are theological consequences that turn on calling stem cells something that implies present "personhood" -- which consequences should be limited within that community of faith and not imposed on others. My community of faith says that whatever you call stem cells - they are not entitled to all of the rights, privileges, immunities, and protections of "personhood" - and that they can be the subject of research.

There are also legal consequences when the theological definitions lead to governmental action.

My point -- if you ascribe "legally protectable personhood" to stem cells - that chain from a theological definition to governmental action is a proscribed "establishment of religion" and inherently leads to a proscribed "prohibition of free exercise" of somebody's religion (like mine)

[NAO]

2. Bringing Freethought back into National Discourse key to re-Enlightenment

Antidote to Fundamentalist Nut-Cases is a Revival of the Freethought Movement

I think what we need is a Freethought movement similar to what the US had around the turn of the 20th century. Robert Ingersoll was touring the country, lecturing on secularism and exposing the claims of revealed religion to be false. Unless something breaks the stranglehold of religious fundamentalism in the US - and in the world - I think we are going to continue the slide into Theocracy and destruction.

- Freethinkers could produce TV ads that exposed the claims of Christianity to be falsehoods.

- Freethinkers could form an 'anti-Gideons' and leave copies of Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason" and Robert Ingersoll's "Why I am Agnostic" in hotel rooms.

- Freethinkers produce tracts and pamphlets showing the contradictions in the Bible and exposing the rip-off of dozens of pagan beliefs and their incorporation into Christianity.

We could have a Second Enlightenment, a Second Age of Reason. We could re-secularize a world gone mad with religious superstition.

Robert Ingersoll's "Why I Am Agnostic"
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/why_i_am_agnostic.html

Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason"
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/index.shtml

*****

From "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine (1795)

EVERY national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike. Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

When I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven, and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes to near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself, and therefore I have a right not to believe it. When also I am told that a woman, called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not: such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it: but we have not even this; for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves. It is only reported by others that they said so. It is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not chose to rest my belief upon such evidence.

It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given to the story of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. He was born when the heathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world, and that mythology had prepared the people for the belief of such a story. Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of some of their gods. It was not a new thing at that time to believe a man to have been celestially begotten; the intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabited with hundreds; the story therefore had nothing in it either new, wonderful, or obscene; it was conformable to the opinions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles, or mythologists, and it was those people only that believed it. The Jews, who had kept strictly to the belief of one God, and no more, and who had always rejected the heathen mythology, never credited the story.

It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian Church, sprung out of the tail of the heathen mythology. A direct incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that then followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which was about twenty or thirty thousand. The statue of Mary succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus. The deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints. The Mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian Mythologists had saints for everything. The church became as crowded with the one, as the pantheon had been with the other; and Rome was the place of both. The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud.

Consider a Freethought PAC to Run Attack Ads Exposing Religious Superstition on TV

I think what we need to counter this type of crap is a Freethought PAC - One that would run aggressive attack ads on TV. "Freethinkers for Truth", or something along those lines, to debunk religious superstition using 30 second TV attack ads. They could feature "Great Moments in American Secularism and Freethought" with "Great American Freethinkers" like Thomas Paine and Robert Ingersoll.

If TV stations would not run the ads, we could pull the same, "help, help, I'm being repressed!" crap that the fundies are always whining about. And of course the refusal to run the ads would draw attention to the works of Paine and Ingersoll, which are in themselves a very effective antidote to religious superstition.

The Freethought Zone
Science and Reason Over Religion and Superstition
http://freethought.freeservers.com /

Freedom from Religion Foundation
http://www.ffrf.org /

Secular Humanism
http://www.secularhumanism.org /

Secular Web
http://www.infidels.org/index.shtml

Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason - Online
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/index.shtml

Complete Works of Robert Ingersoll - Online
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/index.shtml

Dominionism's Theocratic Designs and Radical Clerics

Fundamentalist Radical Clerics such as Falwell, Dobson, and Robertson are not merely medieval throwbacks or misguided religious hacks. They are part of a well organized subversionary movement known as "Dominionism". Dominionism constitutes a serious threat to American Democracy. These Radical Clerics have developed and are executing a detailed plan to gradually replace the free, secular democratic society of the United States with a Theocracy.

It is critical that people become aware of the extreme agenda these people have for the United States and ultimately for the world. The results of the 2004 Presidential Election were not a fluke or something that was drummed up over a period of months. It has been in planning for over 20 years, and what we are seeing take place now is, in the words of Katherine Yurica, "the swift advance of a planned coup".

The Swift Advance of a Planned Coup: Conquering by Stealth and Deception - How the Dominionists Are Succeeding in Their Quest for National Control and World Power
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheSwiftAdvanceOfaPlannedCoup.htm

The Despoiling of America: How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

Video on the Christian Reconstructionist Dominionist Theocratic Agenda
http://www.theocracywatch.org/av/video_dominion.ram

The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party
a public information project from TheocracyWatch.org
http://www.theocracywatch.org

The Religious Right - An Anti-American Terrorist Movement
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8816.htm

Evolve Fish - Your One-Stop Shop for Freethought Materials
http://www.evolvefish.com

[LTRS]

3. No, I don't think we can win by attacking Christianity

We need to focus on attacking EXTREMISM. Too many people identify as Christians, so that will not be successful. The key is to paint these extremists as out of the mainstream of Christianity.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Right. The Pat Robertson crowd can rewrite science textbooks

and brainwash kids with those singing computer-animated vegetables which were so prominently featured in the New Testament, but once again, unbelievers and heretics are supposed to shut the fuck up and get to the back of the bus.

Right. Why is it an "unacceptable attack" on religion to state that, sorry, I don't think belief in a giant all powerful bearded sky-man is any more logical than belief in a magic bunny that hides eggs every springtime...? but, then, I'm supposed to TOLERATE daily intrusions by glassy-eyed jesus folks wanting to fill my kids' heads with unscientific mush in public school--- and I'm supposed to WELCOME legions of smarmy minivan drivers who want to save my soul with "the good news"?.

Uh... huh.

[funflower]

33. The key is to find issues that separate the extremists from

the mainstream Christians.

Key issues, imo, include:

1. Environmental protection (we are stewards of God's creation)
2. Birth control (short of surgical abortion)
3. Women's rights (most moderate Christians believe in equality, at least before the law, if not in the family or church)
4. Theistic evolution or some sort of less-orthodox version of the
history of the universe that does not exclude God entirely.
5. Warmongering. Mainstream Christians do not have an endless appetite for unjustified military adventures.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

9. This is exactly the wrong idea

If you want to attack religion, knock yourself out. But don't plan on winning any elections in the meantime.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Yes, because thinking for one's self

is clearly an attack on religion.

[LTRS]

17. No, but this stuff from his post....

"Freethinkers could produce TV ads that exposed the claims of Christianity to be falsehoods.

- Freethinkers could form an 'anti-Gideons' and leave copies of Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason" and Robert Ingersoll's "Why I am Agnostic" in hotel rooms.

- Freethinkers produce tracts and pamphlets showing the contradictions in the Bible and exposing the rip-off of dozens of pagan beliefs and their incorporation into Christianity."

Is clearly an attack on mainstream Christianity - and mainstream Christianity is NOT the problem we face.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. I would like what you call "mainstream christianity" to step up to the

damn plate, then.

Because the people most loudly proclaiming themselves "Christian" in American public life nowadays? Yeah, they ARE the extremists.

I'm not on the Jesus team. It's not my job to help with his pr.


Everyone should have the right to their opinion. The fundies are certainly getting their 15 minutes. Again, I don't see why unbelievers are constantly told our beliefs are ok.. just as long as we keep em in the closet!

[LTRS]

23. You can shout them from the rooftops if you want

... that would simply put you on the opposite end of the extremist spectrum.

The point is that voters don't vote for extremism of any flavor. If we want to marginalize the Christian right extremists we have to point out that they are indeed extremists.

And that really has nothing whatsoever to do with your personal beliefs, which, whether you like it or not, are just as out of the mainstream as the religious extremists this thread is about.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. Yes, crazy, whackjob me, I think the Earth is really 4.5 billion years old

not 4,000.

I believe in evolution. Dinosaurs. That the Earth and solar system accreted out of a disk of gas and dust, as opposed to being sculpted by giant invisible hands.

And I'm just craaaaaaazy enough to reserve judgement on ANY phenomenon or theory- be it called "God" or "UFOs" until I have evidence for it.

Voters don't vote for extremism of any flavor? Have you READ the GOP platform lately????

Maybe the problem is that we have one party that isn't afraid to side with the utter nutter butters in our society, and another party that is busy walking on eggshells to avoid offending anyone. Meanwhile, there are millions- MILLIONS- of intelligent, secular, urban voters with a socially libertarian bend, who can't figure out which party to vote for because they don't know who is LESS interested in micro-managing their affairs. And when the Dem. party falls all over itself to echo the smarmy faux-religious (didn't Jesus say something about not trusting people who make a big show out of their faith?) platitutidinizing of the GOP, we lose them by the legion.

And on that subject, how am I supposed to know whether my beliefs are out of the mainstream or not, if every time someone suggests that us unbelievers speak up for ourselves, the nattering nabobs come out of the woodwork and go "Shhhhhhhhhhh! You can't say THAT!"

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Warren DeMontague]

30. Thank you, thread monitor. Well, I'm wondering just what it will take

because, as you say, "Christian extremists have dominated the debate"..

but- wait! "Many Christian voters would not follow the Christian right extremists if their extremism was put under a spotlight and exposed as it should be"

Hmmmm. Funny, that. They've dominated the debate, but somehow, these elusive mainstream Christians still can't figure out what they're about.

Well, because far be it for me to call mainstream Christians a little slow on the uptake, this "extremist" thinks one of two things must be happening- either the mainstream christians aren't as mainstream as you think they are, or they aren't as christian as you think they are.

Furthermore, half the people in this country don't vote. How the hell do you know lots of them aren't secular humanists? Somebody isn't being spoken to in our public discourse. Maybe it's not the Christian voters that need to be courted.. (in case you hadn't noticed, there's plenty of that going on already.) "Most people" in this country say they are believers, particularly politicians. Because coming out and saying you're an atheist- or even an agnostic- is, in many places, as much political suicide as surely as coming out and saying you are gay is.

The way to change that is certainly not to keep hectoring the unbelievers into the closet, although it's nice to know that some things never change- particularly the ever-present religious folks who blow a gasket (even here) whenever unbelievers dare to speak out.

Or, here's a novel idea. How about we get this religion bugaboo out of politics entirely. Would it be such a terrible thing to have a candidate who says "believe whatever the hell you want to- just try...really TRY... to not foist it on your god-damn neighbor"

[LTRS]

39. How many times do I have to repeat myself

... I think you may have a reading problem because I keep telling you that you can shout your beliefs from the rooftop if it suits you as far as I am concerned-- it just isn't going to be well received by the vast majority. How is that "hectoring the unbelievers into the closet?" Read again slowly .... spout that all you want, but it isn't going to win any elections, nor will it help to marginalize the religious extremists (which is the TOPIC of this thread).

As for Christians being "slow on the uptake" - to the contrary, they are only hearing one message, and so they have nothing else to "uptake" at this point. Yes, liberal Christians should be more vocal, but one of the tenets of authentic Christians is NOT to use religion as a political tool, so they have not. Unfortunately, their absence from the debate has left only one side of the story being told -- and that is the extremist side.

That is changing though. Here in Seattle area we have 229 liberal churches who have formed a coalition and begun to make their voice heard. And Dem politicians need to do the same.

Voting or not voting has nothing to do with identifying as a secular humanist versus a Christian. Nearly 80% of people in this country profess to be Christians. Another 2% are Jews. Now I don't know about you, but in my book that is a vast majority of the population that claim to be believers. You can choose to think that's stupid, but faith and a belief in God is a very personal issue. You're not likely to make unbelievers out of believers. And why would you want to? People should have the right to hold whatever beliefs about religion that they want, even if YOU don't agree with them.

There is nothing fundementally wrong with Christianity -- in fact the teachings in the bible very much mirror the values that most progressive hold dear. The problem is with the bastardization of authentic Christianity. THAT is what needs to be highlighted here.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

55. You're missing several points here...

Mainstream Christians know perfectly well what we're about. The problem is in the Mainstream Media, which when it needs to hear the "Christian Perspective" on an issue trots out Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or Pat Buchanan or Alan Keyes or Bill Bennett. These people do not, and never did, represent the beliefs of Mainstream Christians. Christianity has been slandered by a media that keeps handing the microphone over to the most extreme and un-Christian voices in public life.

Consider it a case of Ecclesiastical Identity Theft.

Not to preach a sermon here, but God comes to us not through the State Legislature, but by the power of the Holy Spirit. There's no amount of hectoring or legislating that I can do that will being you to faith. That's a journey you make on your own an in your own good time. If you ever make it at all. That's why Mainstream Christians have been so silent as the extremists have taken over. It's just our way to simply offer you the gospel for you to accept or reject as you see fit.

That being said, let's get something straight here. I'm about winning elections, and I could care less if the candidate in question is an avowed atheist, as long as he shares my Christian values. That's not as impossible as it sounds, because for many Mainstream Christians, the biblical command to "love thy neighbor" provides a sound cornerstone for progressive government.

[FrenchieCat]

31. I agree.....no need to alienate.

I attend a Black Baptist Church with a 5,000 people congregation. Barbara Lee is also a member of this church. Don't unite Christians by attacking them.

I'd say, you lose about 85% of the Black and the Hispanic vote doing that.

Why would anyone want to try solving a problem by making it worse?

Call the Extremists just that...Extremists Religious Wrong.

Just don't call them FUNDIES....as it rhymes with FUNNY. They ain't that.

[funflower]

32. Interesting and informative post, but

in my experience, it's harder to get people to organize and participate consistently when they are not driven by something like the fear of eternal damnation than when they are.

[Comrade Kangaroo]

4. What would Jesus do?

I really hate that slogan, because it implies that somehow Jesus Christ himself has personaly endorsed the Republican Party, and that pissing away all our money on weapons of war while we have more poverty than any other western democracy is somehow a Christian value. If Jesus were here, he'd be appalled. He'd probably drop-kick George Bush in the nuts.

[LTRS]

5. I can't picture Jesus kicking anyone in the nuts...

... but I am firmly convinced he'd have nothing but disdain for republicans -- kind of like his attitude toward the Pharisees.

The point is we have to take on this issue head on. We are letting republicans control the debate and hijack Christianity to be used as nothing more than a political tool. We have to stop being afraid to point that out.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

10. Use it to your advantage...

Ask them to picture those images from Abu Ghraib, then ask "What would Jesus do?" Ask them to picture handicapped children being turned out of community centers because of budget cuts, then ask "What would Jesus do?" Ask them to imagine the fabulously wealthy getting enormous tax breaks at the expense of the poorest and most vulnerable Americans, then ask them "What would Jesus do?"

Ask them to seriously ponder that question in light of the Republican Platform.

[Warpy]

6. Above all, use the word "unchristian" frequently

when talking about the policies of these wack jobs.

It packs a real wallop. I guarantee it.

[LTRS]

7. Great word -- perfect!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

8. Nominated for the Greatest Page

More folks need to read this.

A little extra spin that might appeal to disaffected "Main Street Republicans." Remind them that a generation ago, Barry Goldwater was rejected because he was considered too extreme, and that Goldwater in his last years rejected the religious extremists like Falwell and Robertson.

[understandinglife]

11. Just ask them how 'christian' this is:

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[Warren DeMontague]

24. Yeah, you'll be arguing with a brick wall.

Most of these self-identified Christian Right folks would kick Jesus's ass if he showed up today spouting his long-haired, hippie, socialist, peacenik rhetoric. Just ask the Abu Ghraib guard who tortured the Muslim prisoner and forced him to "thank Jesus". For these people, Christianity is like the home football team. They don't think for five fucking seconds about what it really means.

[LTRS]

25. You miss the point completely

The objective is NOT to win over the extremist Christian right nut jobs -- they cannot be reasoned with (any more than you can, apparently). Extremists are not reasonable people.

The point is to shine a white hot spotlight on their extremism over and over again with the correct messaging so that mainstream Christians stop identifying with them in the mistaken belief that these extremists share their values simply because they label themselves "Christians".

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Again, that's the job of mainstream christians... wherever they are.

I eagerly await their taking back of their religion.

[LTRS]

29. No one said it was the job of atheists

... did they?

[FizzFuzz]

65. I sure wish the pastors of the normal Christian churches would GET BUSY

They're the only ones who can get this ball moving.

There are plenty of real Christians in high places; they have a responsability to get LOUD. Wouldn't Jesus have done so?

My Buddhist mentor speaks to many leaders the world over about human dignity, understanding and dialogue among differing people, and the dangers of fundamentalism and fanatacism. The historical Buddha spoke out loudly against evil, and the Buddhist sage whose school I follow did the same, speaking out loudly against twisted misinterpretations of the teachings rampant at that time.

The majority of Americans are Judeo-Christian. Therefore, Jewish and Christian leaders need to GET BUSY.

[understandinglife]

72. PRECISELY. Thank you.

Peace.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3699246

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Be it MNA Day 4 or 8 or 15 or .... the day will come when 10s of millions of Americans and others stop their typical activities for 24 hours and urge 10 times that many to join should another MNA Day be required. On that glorious day what we once called "America" will emerge.

[KaliTracy]

13. it's hard to talk to those on the edge.... but

I think the key is to wake people up -- especially those who don't seem to be thinking about this too much.



For those who are so inclined -- some bumper stickers I thought appropriate to this....

Bumperstickers from http://www.instantattitudes.com/complete.html

[oxbow]

16. "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians...."

"Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
-Gandhi

[TheGunslinger]

19. Call them what they are: religious extremists and radical clerics

[Warren DeMontague]

34. Want to marginalize fundamentalist extremists? Apply CRITICAL THINKING

and LOGIC their assertions.

Apply the same rigorous standards of credulity to statements like, "Jesus doesn't want you to use birth control" as we would to someone saying "I Can Fly".. or "My invisible friend just told me to take all my clothes off and run through the mall"

Uh oh, we can't do that- it might 'offend' someone.

[LTRS]

36. So telling all people who believe in God

... that they are full of shit will help us win elections? How will that work, exactly? You don't think they have a right to believe in God because you don't? Is that it? Doesn't that make you just as intolerant as the religious extremists who want to shove their beliefs down my throat? It certainly seems so to me.

And where will find all the candidates to run on the "God doesn't exist" platform since most people in this country DO emphatically believe in God?

[Warren DeMontague]

38. All I said was to apply critical thinking to their assertions. The same

kind that would be applied to any others. No special treatment.

It's only threatening if critical thinking is threatening.

edit: FWIW, Tom Tomorrow kicks ass.

[LTRS]

42. There is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed

... and whether he was the son of God or just a mortal man is a question that cannot be answered by "critical thinking."

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Yawn.

I thought you didn't care what other people do or don't believe, so please spare me the proseltyzing.

I really (really!) don't care, either- until said belief becomes a matter of PUBLIC POLICY. As soon as someone's 'personal, private' belief becomes the basis of their attempt to criminalize birth control methods, or discriminate against gays, or teach unscientific gibberhaddle in public school science class, then it's fair game.

You think the way to beat the fundies is to reclaim Christianity. Not a bad idea, and frankly it's about time. I seriously hope liberal Christians can pull it off.

But I still think there are secular voters -in far larger numbers than you may want to acknowledge- that aren't being reached, and having two major parties trying to out-Jesus each other isn't going to help that any. Of course, one would hope we could all agree that whatever people believe, the Separation of Church and State is a fine idea handed down to us by the folks (many of them Deists, of course) who founded this country.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

56. Secular Voters

There aren't large numbers of secular voters that aren't being reached, because there aren't large numbers of secular voters in the United States. According to a survey last year by the Pew Charitable Trust, the percentage of secular and agnostic persons in the United States was 10.7%. They're already strongly Democratic, with only about 2.8% of the population (about 27% of the secular/atheist population) being self-described as Independents.

The "Modernist" and "Mainline" branches of the various denominations (including Jewish, Islamic, and "Others") account for just over sixty percent of the vote. Many of these denominations are already Democratic majorities; others aren't, but we could make some serious inroads by exposing the unchristian and frankly, spooky, nature of the extremists.

[LTRS]

66. Not proseltyzing at all

in fact I wouldn't even count myself as much of a believer. I'm learn more toward agnosticism, though I have had plenty of experience with churches over the years... just saying critical thinking doesn't really have anything to do with it.

It might surprise you to know that most mainstream Christians believe in the separation of church and state as well. As for myself, I would hope that most secular humanists aren't as intolerant of others beliefs as you appear to be.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. I don't mean to sound intolerant- really, I don't.

But I'm not the one pushing theology into every aspect of public life, as well as into the science textbooks my kid encounters in public school. Hence, the irritation. I do find it exasperating that the assertions of religious extremists get a "free pass", even when they are used as a basis for influencing public policy. Yes, I understand that not every Christian believes that dinosaur bones were planted 4,000 years ago to confuse the faithful, but again I feel it is the job of, as you put it, mainstream christians to get out and counter the message and reclaim the faith.

I agree with much of what I consider the essence of real christianity, much as I agree with the sentiment behind Buddhism and many other religions- be decent to people, help the downtrodden, everything is connected, what I do to my neighbor I do to myself. I concur with all that- it's when those things mutate into "I need to tell you how to live your life, heathen" that I have a problem.

But, really, while I do support freethinkers, atheists, and agnostics having a greater organized voice in our society (and I still think that's a good idea, whether or not that "alienates" others) my intent was not to belittle anyone's beliefs or appear intolerant. I don't believe those two things are mutually exclusive but I do apologize for coming on so strong. Needless to say, I'm a little fed up with the religion-on-the-march tenor of our society these days, but I really don't lump all religious people into that pot.

[NMMNG]

35. Kick

:kick:

[Swamp Rat]

40. No, I want them lobotomized.

:D

[LTRS]

43. That could work too!

LOL!

[NMMNG]

74. You can't remove the nonexistent

[Swamp Rat]

75. I was waiting for you show up.

Here's a fundy... do yo' thang! :D

[xchrom]

44. if christian extremists can dish it out -- then they can take it.

that's the way the game is played.

i'm a christian -- and have no fear of critisizing christians in general or extremists specifically -- i mean if they can preach politics from the pulpit{hello baptists, catholics} then they have to take the good with the bad.

christians are not the only people any body has to be sensitive about -- there's a whole mixed up neighborhood out there.
and if you come in my house and act-up then expect to be treated the same.

[LTRS]

45. I'm actually talking about what dem politicians should say

... they need to craft a message that refutes the extremists and repeat it at every opportunity. Sorry if I wasn't clear that I meant politicians.

[pgh_dem]

62. My impression of a impeachdubya's point

...and how it could overlap with yours:

If 'mainstream christians' (saw a few of them in the Calvin College situation) were actually vocal in their opposition to fundamentalists, the nervous Dem politicians could actually borrow that spine to criticize extremism.

I think impeachdubya's bristling at the understandable perception that what you call mainstream christians seem to have more defensiveness and ire towards non-believers than real 'link up arms and protest' opposition to the extremists.

What I think impeachdubya is seeing is the non-extremist christians getting their hackles up at criticism of christianity *brought on by reaction to extremism*, because the non-extremists can hardly be argued to be taking a stand against extremism.

[xchrom]

64. that's what i mean by ''the game''.

religous persons have become political persons in this environment.

[JNelson6563]

52. One more thing

Adding to your suggestion we utilize the term "extremists". I agree with that strongly. I also think we should refer to Falwell and friends as "radical clerics".

If this has been suggested already, I apologize as I didn't read whole thread.

Julie

[CTLawGuy]

54. I completely agree with your statement

:hi:

[Jawja]

57. I'm for the use of

"Theocratic Jihad" against the Constitution and all it stands for. They advocate Biblical law over Constitutional law and the role of the Judiciary in our system of government.

They are Anti-Constitution. We should paint these nutjobs and "UnAmerican," because that's exactly what they are.

[hootinholler]

59. Don't forget to add you're not speaking of good Christians, just the

TALIBORNAGIN!

-Hoot

[Coastie for Truth]

60. The religious right

are heretics and blasphemers who take the Lord's name in vain. We have to get behind the Religious Left (like Jim Wallis and Michael Lerner) and marginalize the Religious Right for the heretics and blasphemers and hypocrites that they are.

We are not going to win them over. We are going to marginalize them from their flock.

To put it in American majority group Christian terminology

WHAT WOULD JESUS DO

And like Ed Schultz says, we lefties have to "Go to Church" ourselves - even if it's only to shake hands with the Pastor after services and chit-chat with our frinds and neighbors outside.

[Joanne98]

70. "The Flat-Earth Society" works better. They hate that one.

You can also post "The Christian Mafia" expose by Wayne Madsen at Insider Magazine. They hate that too.

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Wayne_Madsen

[Mr_Spock]

73. I do this every day - everybody MUST do this as a resposibility to country

I feel it is my responsibilty to my country and my kids to make sure people are clear about the LIES they are being told by Bushco and Jesusco. I could care less what anybody thinks - nobody challenges me anyway because they know I'm 100% right (just don't overdo the rhetoric).