Time for a little perspective on the Obama issue

[illinoisprogressive]

i support and will continue to support Barack Obama. I do not approve of the singer he had in his gospel thing today.
I have not had a chance to read much on it yet, so aside from the little I've gathered, I don't approve.
I am also not religious. However, I have friends who are.
I won't condemn all religious people on the basis of one messed up guy. I won't condemn religious people as being any one way as like all people, they are all different.
If you condemn them then, you condemn buddists, wiccans, ect as they are religious as well. And you condemn martin Luther King and Ghandi and all other religious leaders because a few, like say, a Falwell, gives religion a bad name.
I also see that going over board and half cocked because of one person and condemning everyone else as being the same is like being the same as the fringe right wingers who condemn all democrats as hating America, or are terrorists.
Condemning everyone religious is the same as those who have condemned all muslims because of the actions of a few fringe muslims.
In other words, I think people need to quit reacting and shouting and take a few moments to gather the facts and try to see things in a more even keel, rational way.
You must realize that acting the same as the right fringe but, taking the opposite postion doesn't make you any better or different from acting just like the fringe right.

[bowens43]

1. All religion should be condemned. n/t

[Colobo]

7. It should, but it won't happen.

[skipos]

8. "The only good religion is a dead religion" eh?

Very open minded of you.
:sarcasm:

[earthlover]

19. Good point! Actually the intolerance I see here reminds me of Falwell in sheep's clothing

[intheflow]

28. The left has its share of fundamentalists.

And like their counterparts on the right, they have no idea that they're bigoted.

[Rhythm and Blue]

37. For an example, see post #1.

[democrat2thecore]

44. Absolutely

Fundamentalist atheists fail to see when they cross the line into bigotry.
I am a Christian on the Left and am always insulted when I read this kind of hatred.

[varkam]

47. What is a fundamentalist atheist? eom

[democrat2thecore]

50. Just like fundamentalist ANYTHING

A narrow, defining set of beliefs that are thought to be unerring. A passionate and emotional committment to their belief with intolerance for those who do not share that belief.

[varkam]

57. So, if you wouldn't mind...

what are the "narrow, defining set of beliefs that are thought to be unerring" that fundamentalist atheists have? To whom are fundamentalist atheists intolerant?

[democrat2thecore]

58. It is actually self-defining

Just so you know, I have no interest in a tit-for-tat. Especially with fundies of any stripe. Not that you are --- but just so you know.

[democrat2thecore]

59. self-delete Mistake

delete

[varkam]

60. I'm still confused

as how one can be a fundamentalist with respect to the mere absence of belief. As far as I understand the term fundamentalist, there needs to be some set of principles with which one can be fundamental about. For instance, fundamentalist (as I am used to the term) implies that one takes a strictly literal viewpoint on a religious text. If you are saying that one can be called a fundamentalist simply for lacking a belief in a supernatural power then it seems to me that essentially waters down the term to the point where it becomes a meaningless ad hominem attack.

Does having a strong opinion, and expressing that opinion as such, make one a fundamentalist atheist? Does having the opinion that religion is harmful for humanity (which is actually the philosophical position of anti-theism, and has nothing to do with atheism) make one a fundamentalist atheist?

[democrat2thecore]

66. Look it up

One can be fundamentalist about anything. It doesn't have to be about religion. (It is only most commonly used that way.) And surely you don't fall for the old "absence of belief" doesn't, in and of itself, follow a long litany of beliefs. Absence of belief in a "God" can be organized, it can be intolerant, it can be tyrannical, it can be everything that BELIEF in a God can be. To think otherwise is only fooling yourself. As I said, I'm not interested in a tit-for-tat. So, the floor is yours.

[varkam]

73. Then, in that case,

the usage seems to be a watered down ad hominem as opposed to anything meaningful. On your definition, one could be a fundamentalist a-anything. For instance, I am a fundamentalist with respect to opposing teaching theology inside the science classroom.

Also, one of the marks of fundamentalism that you seem to be -- either intentionally or otherwise -- ignoring is that with the introduction of new evidence, fundamentalists are not likely to alter their beliefs. For my money, if Jesus came back and did an interview with Larry King I would find that powerful evidence to alter my belief structure.

And no, an absence of belief doesn't necessarily entail a long litany of beliefs. Atheism can be all of those things, but that doesn't mean that it is. For instance, I would agree that under Stalin the defacto state sponsored atheism was just as repressive as the church was during the dark ages - but the common denominator was not religion but rather unjustified belief as under Stalin the state sought to make itself into god (and thus removed anything that could detract from the power of the state). The problem was not atheism, in and of itself.

I thought we were having a discussion, rather than "tit-for-tat" - but it's your call.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

75. Typical crackpot bullshit

Religious people love to say that evolution is a religion, atheism is a religion, etc.

They know their faith cannot be defended in rational terms (that's not a knock... no person of real faith would say otherwise), so they denegrate reason as (to paraphrase Dan Quayle) just another life-style choice.

It's offensive and self-important... "Your denial of my religion is itself a religion" Like all thought must be defined in terms of their faith.

[CTLawGuy]

134. Mao Zedong

Fidel Castro and pretty much any other communist ruler... they ran repressive states that were officially atheist.

also the Chinese government vis a vis Falum Gong. Even Atheists can work to repress the beliefs of others.

[varkam]

137. Who is saying they cannot?

Also, I fail to see the relevance of that comment to the ST.

[CTLawGuy]

144. you asked how someone could be fundamentalist to the mere absence of belief

and I told you how, Communist Cuba and China are officially atheist and you better not let them find out you're worshipping anyone. They were fundamantal to a very simple belief (that there is no God).

Fundamentalism involves a certain intolerance for those who think differently.

[varkam]

149. Their atheism...

was more or less a political tool rather than a simple philosophical position. They wanted to remove anything that could detract from the power of the state, and religion was one of those things. In other words, it wasn't that they were just weak atheists who thought that theists didn't satsify the burden of proof - they thought they were gods in their own right.

But so if fundamentalist atheists are ones who would seek to prevent anyone else from worshipping as they believe, then either people who toss that moniker around here with reference to other DUers are (I suspect) either clueless or being intentionally inflammatory. Or, for that matter, I'm not aware of any atheist (not even Dawkins or Hitchens) that is advocating we create a defacto atheist state and start slaughtering theists.

[Goblinmonger]

153. Cuba and China are officially atheist

Got a link for that because I call bullshit. I do not believe that it is governmentally offical. I believe that religion is suppressed, but I believe you will find the number of countries that are "officially atheist" are quite limited.

[CTLawGuy]

155. ok

Cuba:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Cuba

History
After the revolution of 1959, Cuba became an officially atheistic state and restricted religious practice. From 1959 to 1961 eighty percent of the professional Catholic priests and Protestant ministers of Cuban churches left Cuba for the United States.<1> Relationships between the new government and congregations were tense, the new Cuban government was very limiting and suspicious of church operations, blaming them for collaboration with the CIA during the Bay of Pigs invasion and stockpiling arms provided for a "counter-revolution".<1>

China

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China

Government of the People's Republic of China
The People's Republic of China was established in 1949. The Government of the People's Republic of China is atheist, therefore most of the time, it is anti-religion which was seen as emblematic of feudalism and foreign colonialism. Houses of worship, including temples, mosques, and churches, were converted into non-religious buildings for secular use during its early years, especially during Cultural revolution. After the 1970s, the trend was mostly reverted.

In the early years of the government, religious belief or practice was often discouraged because it was regarded as backwards and superstitious. Some of the Communist leaders, from Vladimir Lenin to Mao Zedong, had been critical of religious institutions. During the Cultural Revolution, religion was condemned as feudalistic and thousands of religious buildings were looted and destroyed.

[Goblinmonger]

156. 2 things

1. Check on the status of Cuba after, I believe, 1992. Are they still officially atheist?

2. Is it the official position of the government to be atheist in China or do they believe that religion is a relic of the past and they highly (sometimes forcibly, yes) discourage it? Is it their current practice? I think you'll find it's not. I think you'll find they are a secular government.

on edit: What I am saying about China is that their official policy is to allow religious practice (admittedly closely monitored) which would seem to run counter to your claim.

[CTLawGuy]

157. but they were at one point officially atheist

I was refuting an argument that atheists could not be fundies. Here were institutions that enforced atheist fundamentalism (i.e. fervent promotion of principles through coercive government means).

[intheflow]

93. To me, an example would be

someone who uses atheism as a psychological weapon, just as many fundamentalist Christians use Christianity as a weapon. By that I mean, use of a belief system to belittle someone, shame someone, exclude someone, show intolerance of other beliefs, etc.

And please don't say atheism isn't a belief system. I am fully aware that atheism is not a religious belief. But atheists believe there is no god, ergo, it is a belief system. Capitalism is not a religion, either, but plenty of people believe in it.

[varkam]

94. It seems that you're contradicting yourself...

by conflating the terms religion, belief system, and the idea of lack of belief.

Atheism, it it's simple form, is simply a lack of belief. Atheists have as much a belief system as people who don't believe in unicorns. Atheists don't believe there is no god, rather they do not believe in a god - and there is a difference there. That difference, which is small but important, centers around the issue of a burden of proof. Someone who claims that there is no god assumes the burden of proof in the argument, and thence must set out to support his or her conclusion. Atheism (in it's simple form) is just a result of the theist having failed to satisfy that burden of proof.

Your example of Capitalism, for example, and that people believe in it implies that those such people are making a positive claim and assume the burden of proof.

I'd be willing to grant that strong atheism is a belief system (that is the atheist who makes the positive claim that there is no god, but then the application of the term fundamentalist to those atheists seems watered down and meaningless. You could then call essentially anyone that you disagree with a fundamentalist, which smacks of ad hominem rhetoric. Perhaps a better (and more meaningful) word choice would be "asshole". :D

[intheflow]

96. Merrium-Webster says we're both right.

atheism

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546

1 (archaic): ungodliness, wickedness

2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

http://m-w.com/dictionary/atheism

2a could also be stated as "a belief in the non-existence of a diety," which would support my definition.

Of course, 2b claims athiests follow a doctrine, which is itself a religious term. So perhaps it's a problem with the English language. :hi:

[varkam]

97. No.

2a could not be stated as "a belief in the non-existence of a diety" which was the entire point of my previous post.

2a falls along the lines of weak atheism, whereas 2b is strong atheism. I hope that point is clear. Also, the word doctrine is not only applicable to religious traditions.

[intheflow]

99. "Dis" means "non", so the two terms are interchangeable. imo.

You say potato, I say potahto. The very fact that word "theism" appears in the word "atheism" acknowledges that "theism" exists. You cannot be against something without that thing to be against. This is akin to yin/yang. Or if you prefer, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

I actually think atheists need to coin a new term to describe themselves, "atheism" carries too much historical baggage.

[varkam]

102. Again, you miss the point of the burden of proof.

Here is a real live atheist, trying to explain what atheism is to you, and you don't seem to be reading along.

By the way, the prefix a does not mean against. It means without.

Again - weak atheism is not a belief at all it is a lack of a belief. I'll use an example: suppose that a jury returns a not guilty verdict on a man arrested for a crime. What that jury is saying, in essence, is not that the man is totally innocent but rather that the prosecutor failed to satisfy the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, they could not find him guilty.

[intheflow]

118. Again, you miss the subtlety of my meaning.

I can make the same case for the word "without" as I can with "against". You can't be without something unless you have something to be without. You can't lack something without having that thing to lack; you can't lack a belief without having a belief.

Varkam, I respect your opinion on this, but I think we are talking past each other. We've hijacked this thread. Can we agree to disagree on atheism, and unite in the work of regaining democracy from the Bush administration?

[varkam]

122. Because I am not a stamp collector...

does not mean that I am against stamp collecting or stamp collectors. Because I do not believe in unicorns doesn't mean that I have a belief system regarding them.

edited to add: this thread was hijacked long ago. No point in stopping now.

[intheflow]

125. No, no!

Truce! Truce! It's late and I don't want to play he said/she said anymore. Good night, and thanks for a lively debate. :hi:

[varkam]

126. Ha! I win by default!

That's my tactic - just outlast the other fellow :D

Thanks to you too. Take care.

[iverglas]

86. you probably need to learn what tolerance actually means

Here's one articulation of the meaning:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/

On this site, religious tolerance means:
To extend religious freedom to people of all religious traditions, even though you may well disagree with their beliefs and/or practices.

Religious tolerance does not require you:
To accept all religions as equally true.

Nobody here, that I've seen, has expressed the view that religion should be actively eliminated from society, or that anyone should be adversely treated because of his/her choice of religion.

I don't have to be tolerant of religions. That doesn't even make sense. I have to be tolerant of people's practice of their religions -- by not advocating that they suffer disadvantage, or worse, because of their choices and practices.

Nobody has any obligation to be "open minded", to quote the other poster, about religion.

There may indeed be a fine line between denigrating a religion and participating in exposing its adherents to the adverse effects of actions by people who are intolerant of people who practise that religion. But that simply does not mean that every negative thing said about every religion, no matter how harsh, is evidence of intolerance.

Actually the intolerance I see here reminds me of Falwell in sheep's clothing

And I find that statement to be unspeakably vile.

No one here has blamed a vulnerable minority group for catastrophic events that have occurred within the society. No one here has cultivated and then exploited a huge and easily manipulated audience and then directed messages at that audience that incite them to hate members of a vulnerable group.

No one who responds to the claim that some vile message or action in a society is motivated by religious belief is responsible for injecting religious beliefs into the public discourse, or using religion or lack thereof to denigrate or jeopardize anyone else. The injection of religious belief into the public discourse is done by those who claim religious belief as the basis for their words and actions.

If someone doesn't like his/her religious beliefs being a subject of critical comment, s/he should shut the fuck up about them. Pretty damned obvious.

If it is important to the adherents of some religions to proselytize for it or to advocate particular policies explicitly as being demanded by that religion, they're free to do it. The rest of the world is absolutely entitled to criticize their words and actions -- their attempt to organize public policy around a particular religious belief, and the basis they claim for those attempts, if someone chooses to do so -- without being accused of intolerance. The intolerance rests with the people who want to impose on other people the rules that they believe or claim are justified by their religion, and not on the dissenters.

In a nutshell: they started it, if they can't stand the heat, etc. etc.

[cuke]

100. 100% wrong

Surprising, coming from someone as intelligent as you who has obviously spent a good amt of time comtemplating the issue.

"Nobody here, that I've seen, has expressed the view that religion should be actively eliminated from society, or that anyone should be adversely treated because of his/her choice of religion."

You must have missed the comment about condemning religion. And there have been threads calling for limiting the rights of the religious. One even called for a ban on ALL religious expression in public.



"I don't have to be tolerant of religions. That doesn't even make sense. I have to be tolerant of people's practice of their religions -- by not advocating that they suffer disadvantage, or worse, because of their choices and practices."

That makes no sense. One can be intolerant of things other than people. Ideas are often found to be intolerable to some people.

"There may indeed be a fine line between denigrating a religion and participating in exposing its adherents to the adverse effects of actions by people who are intolerant of people who practise that religion. But that simply does not mean that every negative thing said about every religion, no matter how harsh, is evidence of intolerance."

Calling for the condemnation of all religion is intolerance. It's is not criticism. It's not even saying anything negative about religion. It's not an argument; it's a call to action.


"No one here has blamed a vulnerable minority group for catastrophic events that have occurred within the society. No one here has cultivated and then exploited a huge and easily manipulated audience and then directed messages at that audience that incite them to hate members of a vulnerable group."

Wrong. DUers have blamed Christians for a variety of ills, and have exploited the hostility towards religion that is widespread on DU. A few days ago there was a thread about how non-religious parents were claiming to be religious to avoid immunizations, and some used that to "criticize" religion

"If someone doesn't like his/her religious beliefs being a subject of critical comment, s/he should shut the fuck up about them. Pretty damned obvious."

Again "All religions should be condemned" is not criticism. You should know this.

"If it is important to the adherents of some religions to proselytize for it or to advocate particular policies explicitly as being demanded by that religion, they're free to do it. The rest of the world is absolutely entitled to criticize their words and actions -- their attempt to organize public policy around a particular religious belief, and the basis they claim for those attempts, if someone chooses to do so -- without being accused of intolerance. The intolerance rests with the people who want to impose on other people the rules that they believe or claim are justified by their religion, and not on the dissenters."

Again "All religions should be condemned" is not criticism. You should know this.

"In a nutshell: they started it, if they can't stand the heat, etc. etc."

"They started it" is not criticism either

[varkam]

104. A response.

You must have missed the comment about condemning religion. And there have been threads calling for limiting the rights of the religious. One even called for a ban on ALL religious expression in public.

Condemning religion is different from condemning religious people. There have also been posts suggesting that atheists should be tossed out of the democratic party (thankfully, those have been few and far between). I have not seen any posts that suggest, though, that the rights of theists should be stripped (at least none that should be taken seriously).

That makes no sense. One can be intolerant of things other than people. Ideas are often found to be intolerable to some people.

I think the point is that people should get respect, but ideas are not automatically afforded the same.


Calling for the condemnation of all religion is intolerance. It's is not criticism. It's not even saying anything negative about religion. It's not an argument; it's a call to action.

It's hard to say what it is without the poster explaining his or her position a bit more.

Wrong. DUers have blamed Christians for a variety of ills, and have exploited the hostility towards religion that is widespread on DU. A few days ago there was a thread about how non-religious parents were claiming to be religious to avoid immunizations, and some used that to "criticize" religion

There's also widespread hostility towards atheists on DU - as evidenced by this very thread. Not to say that makes hostility towards religion right, but it is a two-way street. Regarding the thread that you are referring to - using religion as an excused to get out of vaccinating your children is pretty stupid on many levels. For one thing, vaccination is a public safety issue. For another, feigning religious belief just to get out of it is absurd and should be criticised without restraint.

Again "All religions should be condemned" is not criticism. You should know this.

Again, we don't know what the intent of the comment was without a further explanation detailing the reasoning of the position.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[varkam]

108. Oy.

There are people who should not get respect. Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and this bigot

Well, people should get respect with the caveat that if they do something that proves otherwise - but as I posted we really don't know what the intent was behind the comment, so I don't think using the term bigot is appropriate.

I don't see any hostility towards atheism on this thread. I see some hostility towards specific atheists, but no hostility towards atheism. I guess it's OK to "criticize" religion, but it's wrong to criticize "atheists"

Well, I'd say terms like evangelical atheist and fundamentalist atheist are ad hominem terms and don't actually mean anything - but what the hell do I know, I'm just an atheist. It's a strawman to assert that I say it is okay to criticize religion but it's wrong to criticize atheists. I believe I posted that it is a two-way street.

You're not getting it. Some DUers criticized those non-immunizers because they were religious, even though they weren't religious. Some understood the thread, and criticized them for endangering public safety. Others responded to that with comments like "The religious don't care about public safety"


Well then some DUers didn't read the article.

If you can't divine any intent, then why call it "criticism"? Doesn't "criticism" imply some sort of logical line of argumentation? Is there any way to interpret that as an argument and not a call to action?

Well you can't really call it a call to action if you can't divine any intent - as you say. I think all we can do is remain agnostic about what the poster actually meant by it.

But, if you have trouble with the obvious, how about the "strangle the priests with the entrails of politicians"? Another "critique"?

No, it was a quote from who I thought was Voltaire (but I was mistaken). If you really think I was trying to call people to action to strangle priests with the entrails of politicians, well...I've got a bridge you might be interested in...

[cuke]

112. vey

You seem to be the only person having a problem divining the intent of that rather obvious phrase.

"Well, I'd say terms like evangelical atheist and fundamentalist atheist are ad hominem terms and don't actually mean anything - but what the hell do I know, I'm just an atheist. It's a strawman to assert that I say it is okay to criticize religion but it's wrong to criticize atheists. I believe I posted that it is a two-way street."

So the words don't have meanings? They are not adjectives which modify the noun "atheists"?

It's obvious that those phrases are meant to limit what follows to those atheists that are evangelical or fundamentalist, and not to those atheists who are not.

"Well you can't really call it a call to action if you can't divine any intent - as you say. I think all we can do is remain agnostic about what the poster actually meant by it."

You are getting ridiculous here. I expected better than "words have no meaning". "All religions should be condemned" has a very simple and obvious meaning. Please use your imagination and explain how this could possibly mean anything other than "All religions should be condemned"?

"No, it was a quote from who I thought was Voltaire (but I was mistaken). If you really think I was trying to call people to action to strangle priests with the entrails of politicians, well...I've got a bridge you might be interested in..."

Well, now you're just being disingenous. I didn't say that was a call to action, because it's OBVIOUS (you seem to be having a problem with the obvious) that it was not meant to be a literal call to action. However, it is obvious that is also not a criticism, but an attack. Specifically, it was an "argument from authority" which is considered a Logical Fallacy.

But maybe it was meant to be flattering. Yes, choking with human entrails. Makes me all warm and fuzzy. I guess Voltaire liked religion. (Is that what you're trying to say?)

[varkam]

113. Hehe

So the words don't have meanings? They are not adjectives which modify the noun "atheists"?

Okay, so then 'splain it to me. What are atheists fundamental about? Hmmm? Go ahead. I'll wait.

You are getting ridiculous here. I expected better than "words have no meaning". "All religions should be condemned" has a very simple and obvious meaning. Please use your imagination and explain how this could possibly mean anything other than "All religions should be condemned"?

Way to shift the goalposts. I never said that words have no meaning, but that it is impossible to determine if what the poster meant was a criticism or a call to action without him or her further explaining what they meant as equally valid arguments could be made for both conclusions on the evidence that currently exists. I don't understand why you are having difficulty with that concept. But even if it is meant as a call to action, what should we do to condemn religion? Should we all go out and start beating theists? Should we just post "I condemn it"? It seems like you're playing the victim a bit here.

Well, now you're just being disingenous. I didn't say that was a call to action, because it's OBVIOUS (you seem to be having a problem with the obvious) that it was not meant to be a literal call to action. However, it is obvious that is also not a criticism, but an attack. Specifically, it was an "argument from authority" which is considered a Logical Fallacy.

:rofl: Of course, your presuming that I was actually making an argument (which I wasn't) so, therefore, there can be no appeal to authority and no fallacy. I didn't say that religion is bad 'cause Voltaire says so. :eyes: If you think that I was making an argument, then please by all means feel free to go back and read really closely; see if you can find (a) a premise or (b) a conclusion. I guess now I understand why you're having such difficulty with the preceeding issue.

[cuke]

114. Sophism won't help you

You can deny what you meant with your quote all you want. I'm sure you posted it (and the other quote) as a way to support religion.

[varkam]

115. Strawman.

I didn't say I posted it as a way to support religion nor was the issue what my feelings are to religion, but rather I refuted your charge of improper appeal to authority by pointing out the (to use a favorite of yours) obvious - there was no argument present. I mean, as far as I know but since I seem to have trouble with the obvious perhaps you can point out where the argument is.

If you care to address any of the other points that I made, please feel free to do so.

edited to add: For bonus points, explain how I committed the fallacy of improper appeal to authority in my "argument".

[earthlover]

131. good point, cuke

It is pretty obvious that he (mis)-quoted Voltaire because he thought the quote was really NEAT and perhaps now there is surprise that others noticed how bigoted Voltaire's quote was and spoke out against the orthodoxy of condemning religion...

What a shock it must be to see that not everyone worships Voltaire and accepts everything he said on faith....

[varkam]

138. My goodness! You just can't seem to help yourself.

Nor, apparently, have you taken the time to read about the context of that quote (or the context of that S-T, but no matter you seem more interested in falling over yourself because - apprently - you have bone to pick with me).

And no, I'm rarely shocked by stupidity. Nor do I worship Voltaire (I don't worship any one or any thing, but perhaps that is too difficult a concept for you to understand).

[earthlover]

142. "rarely shocked by stupidity"

again...looking down on those who disagree with you. Better than thou.

Face it. First you misquoted Voltaire totally. And second, you thought the misquote was so neat that you posted it, entrails and all.

It is quotes like this, however, that demonstrate that some people are not just non-religious....they are anti-religion, and have hostility towards religious people....and in some's minds that would apply to EVERY priest, entrails and all, etc....

You tried to back track and rationalized that you were just attacking groups rather than individuals. As if that made sense. Hitler STARTED by attacking groups, not individuals, and we all agree that Hitler was bad. I am not saying anti-religious people are Hitlers. I am pointing out the illogic of saying because you are attacking groups it has nothing to do with individuals. What if I had said that we would be better off if all anti-religious folk were strangled with entrails? You would be all over me, and rightly so. But it is ok to banter about that intolerant quote from Voltaire.

[varkam]

150. I'm not sure why I bother...

again...looking down on those who disagree with you. Better than thou.

No, I just have a problem with people who don't read my posts because they are in such a hurry to call me a bigot. I guess you could say I don't like that too much - but let me ask you, would you like being called a bigot over and over and over? Do you really think that I'm having a problem with you because you simply think differently than I do? Really?

Face it. First you misquoted Voltaire totally. And second, you thought the misquote was so neat that you posted it, entrails and all.

I'm neither denying that I misqouted it, nor am I denying that I liked the quote.

It is quotes like this, however, that demonstrate that some people are not just non-religious....they are anti-religion, and have hostility towards religious people....and in some's minds that would apply to EVERY priest, entrails and all, etc....

I will explain this, yet again. The quote was not meant to be taken literally, but rather the priest was symbolic of the power of the church and the priest is symbolic of the power of the state - it's not a recommendation that you actually should go out and strangle priests.

You tried to back track and rationalized that you were just attacking groups rather than individuals. As if that made sense. Hitler STARTED by attacking groups, not individuals, and we all agree that Hitler was bad. I am not saying anti-religious people are Hitlers. I am pointing out the illogic of saying because you are attacking groups it has nothing to do with individuals. What if I had said that we would be better off if all anti-religious folk were strangled with entrails? You would be all over me, and rightly so. But it is ok to banter about that intolerant quote from Voltaire.

There you go again with Hitler. I'm not attacking groups. There's a difference between saying theism is a harmful system and saying all theists are bad people. I know you don't understand what that difference is, either because you are simply incapable of comprehending it or because you are merely more interested in playing the victim and milking some perceived affront for all that it is worth.

For someone that says that people shouldn't judge each other, you sure have a piss-poor time of following your own advice (which, by the way, makes you a hypocrite).

[earthlover]

160. Nobody's judging you. Just disagreeing with you when you show your closedmindedness

My only point in this harangue is that people should respect each others' beliefs. I don't like it, and I have pointed this out earlier, when the religious right looks down at atheism as a belief structure. I also don't like it when atheists or antitheists or antireligion people or what ever you call it look down on religion as a belief structure.

My entire point is just let others have their own belief structure, and I am consistent in that I attack anti-atheist as well as anti-religion bigotry equally.

I can understand why someone would believe in god. I can also understand why others would choose not to. What I cannot understand is what difference it makes to anyone how someone else believes. Why is it that anti-religion people feel even the slightest inclination to spout out and attack religion as a belief structure? Why is it that the religious right has even the slightest inclination to spout out and attack atheism as a belief structure? Both are EQUALLY futile. People are going to believe what they believe regardless, and nothing constructive is going to be accomplished by looking down one's snoot at religious or non-religious people. The reason I have argued with you is that you seem intent on looking down on religion in general, and you don't see the similarities your bigotry (by the dictionary definition, not yours) has with the bigotry of the religious right. You're probably a decent enough person, and we no doubt have more in common than not. In fact, in real life we may be friends! (never know in this internet fantasy). My bone is really not with you in particular, but with how common it is on DU to be as judgemental about religion as the religious right is about non-religion, each by their own definitions and each equally rigid.

[varkam]

163. I'm through with this.

My only point in this harangue is that people should respect each others' beliefs. I don't like it, and I have pointed this out earlier, when the religious right looks down at atheism as a belief structure. I also don't like it when atheists or antitheists or antireligion people or what ever you call it look down on religion as a belief structure.

Beliefs do not automatically earn respect. People's right to those beliefs, however, should be respected. It's not that I'm "looking down" on religion. My position is informed on the evidence, like it or not. Do religions do good things? Yes. Do they also do bad things by relying on antiquated ideas and dogma? Oh, hell yes. I'm not talking about people, and I'm not talking about not allowing people to believe whatever they want to believe. Atheism and anti-theism are two, totally seperate things.

My entire point is just let others have their own belief structure, and I am consistent in that I attack anti-atheist as well as anti-religion bigotry equally.

Good god - where have I ever said that people should not be free to believe as they wish concerning the unknown? Rather, I have posted the opposite assertion. People should be free to believe as they wish, and no one should take that away from them.

I can understand why someone would believe in god. I can also understand why others would choose not to. What I cannot understand is what difference it makes to anyone how someone else believes. Why is it that anti-religion people feel even the slightest inclination to spout out and attack religion as a belief structure? Why is it that the religious right has even the slightest inclination to spout out and attack atheism as a belief structure? Both are EQUALLY futile. People are going to believe what they believe regardless, and nothing constructive is going to be accomplished by looking down one's snoot at religious or non-religious people. The reason I have argued with you is that you seem intent on looking down on religion in general, and you don't see the similarities your bigotry (by the dictionary definition, not yours) has with the bigotry of the religious right. You're probably a decent enough person, and we no doubt have more in common than not. In fact, in real life we may be friends! (never know in this internet fantasy). My bone is really not with you in particular, but with how common it is on DU to be as judgemental about religion as the religious right is about non-religion, each by their own definitions and each equally rigid.

I have no bone of contention with any religious person because they are religious. Like I have said over, and over, and over again I take theists on a case by case basis. Anti-theism is not looking down on beliefs that differ from one's own. Rather it is the philosohpical position that religion, in general, causes harm on a number of levels. Yet, even though I do not hate religion or religious people, you still insist on calling me a bigot. Even though I would fight just as hard if we lived in a defacto atheist state that threatened your freedom of worship. Even though I have repeatedly tried to explain to you what anti-theism is and what it is not, I now see it is a lost cause. By the way, when you call someone who you don't know a bigot without bothering to understand what it is they are actually saying, then that is judging them.

Have a good one.

[iverglas]

129. "Wrong". Hmm.

And here I thought words had meanings.

No one here has blamed a vulnerable minority group for catastrophic events that have occurred within the society. No one here has cultivated and then exploited a huge and easily manipulated audience and then directed messages at that audience that incite them to hate members of a vulnerable group.
Wrong. DUers have blamed Christians for a variety of ills, and have exploited the hostility towards religion that is widespread on DU.

You call something I said "wrong", and then say something completely irrelevant to what I said.

I didn't say that no one has blamed Christians for a variety of ills. (I do think that anyone who blamed "Christians", rather than the subset that is bent on having the rights of great swaths of the US population systematically violated, might be guilty of a little improper failure to discriminate.)

What I said was in response to a comment about condemnation of Fallowell, who has blamed vulnerable groups for catastrophic events, the meaning of which is clear, I think. And do I really need to point out that Christians in the US aren't actually a vulnerable group?

I have no idea what you mean by "exploited the hostility towards religion that is widespread on DU". To what end? To call for Christians to be denied access to marriage, adoption, employment? To call for their rights to be violated? I haven't seen it, myself.

Again "All religions should be condemned" is not criticism. You should know this.

I don't think I said it was. I wouldn't likely ever say it was. It was a statement of an opinion. It was a bald statement made without offering facts or argument to support it, but that doesn't mean none can be offered.

"In a nutshell: they started it, if they can't stand the heat, etc. etc."
"They started it" is not criticism either

Well, now you're just being moronic. "They started it" also isn't a yellow polka dot bikini. Nobody said it was one of them, either.

"You started it" is an obvious summary of "if you don't want something you believe to be criticized, don't put it in issue." That isn't criticism, it's a statement of the obvious: that if someone puts something in issue, someone else is very likely going to respond to it.

No one's religion IS in issue in the realm of public policy -- unless they or someone else makes it an issue.

Bigots make other people's religion an issue in public policy. Bigots also often make their own religion an issue in public policy.

Critics of religion don't make anyone's religion an issue in public policy ever -- unless they actually ARE bigots. It's entirely possible for a critic of religion to be a religious bigot. It just IS NOT an identical set. Some critics of religion are bigots. Some critics of religion are not bigots.

Just as some religious people are bigots, and some religious people are not bigots.

No one here has said that all religious people are bigots. And yet critics of religion are being called bigots for being critics of religion, NOT for holding religious people up to contempt or hatred because of their religion or advocating that the rights of religious people be violated because of their religion -- that being what bigots do, and what critics of religion have not done and do not do UNLESS they are also religious bigots.

I have indeed seen broad negative statements at DU about religious people that I think are unwarranted. I also understand that members of vulnerable / disadvantaged / oppressed groups tend to notice the common characteristics of the people who advocate that they be opppressed (the characteristic that distinguishes oppressor from oppressed, generally) and who, of course, benefit from their oppression -- be that characteristic sex, race/ethnicity, or religion -- and generalize their feelings to people who share that characteristic.

That really just isn't the same as bigotry, you know. And being criticized for advocating that other people's rights be violated really isn't the same as being oppressed.


That makes no sense. One can be intolerant of things other than people. Ideas are often found to be intolerable to some people.

Well, I'm damned if I can figure out how being "intolerant of religion" would play out in a real world scenario. All I can think of is

(a) someone being intolerant of other people engaging in private religious practices or holding personal religious beliefs -- which is bigotry;

(b) someone being intolerant of people making or attempting to make their religious practices or beliefs being made public practice or policy -- which is not intolerance, except to the word game player; it is a disagreement about public policy.

There are certainly a lot of word games being played hereabouts.

[CreekDog]

158. Actually, I've been excoriated at DU for saying as long as rights are supported

I don't care if they believe as part of their religion that homosexuality is right or wrong.

But I got lambasted for that.

[MNDemNY]

30. Religion is like an orthopedic shoe...

if it fits you, good enough. Don't ask me to wear your shoes, and don't go nailing shoes on the natives feet. (paraphrased from Geo. Carlin)

[varkam]

10. I think it was Voltaire who said...

that society will never be free until the last priest is strangled with the entrails of the last politician.

[Mass]

40. Here is the actual quote, that is from Diderot.

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot

However, it was not about religion, but about the importance of the Church in decision making.

[varkam]

46. Thanks for the correction.

In that case, I'll toss another up:

"Of religion I know nothing - at least, in its favor"

-Lord Byron

[jefferson_dem]

11. Thanks for chiming in, Chairman Mao.

:eyes:

[MNDemNY]

33. That is very intolerant.

[democrat2thecore]

62. Think of the paradoxical post you just made.

Read the original one-line post, the response, and then YOUR post about intolerance.
The REPLY was intolerant? I think most would argue the "All religion should be condemned" is far more inolerant than the Chairman Mao post.

edit for spelling

[varkam]

63. I think it might be worthwhile to point out...

that the post said that religion should be condemned - not the religious.

[MNDemNY]

IMO your post is intoerant, as well.

[democrat2thecore]

69. Well then......

Add Joe Stalin to the list along with Chairman Mao.

Someone says "All religion should be condemned" - yet everything that comes after THAT is what's intolerant? I smell atheist tyranny in those views (if you really think that to be the case).

And for the other poster who responded who I was engaged with in another thread - you wonder how atheism can not be "fundamentalist?" Look at your own "evangelizing" for your belief....er...unbelief. It can be every bit as tyrannical and fundamentalist in approach.

Some of us Christians on the Left hope the evangelistic atheists will show a little more tolerance for people of faith. We're not all bad. And we don't feel our beliefs should be "condemned" and then called intolerant for questioning that kind of blatant -- intolerance!

http://www.sojo.net/

http://www.crossleft.org/

[MNDemNY]

72. I'm very tolerant of religious beliefs....

AS LONG AS YOU KEEP THEM THE HELL OUT OF POLITICAL POLICY!!!!!!

[democrat2thecore]

95. Like MLK , Jr. did? -nt

[varkam]

110. MLK

didn't do what he did because of religion, he did it in spite of it. You can acknowledge the role that faith played in his actions, but then you can't simultaneously ignore the role that faith had in keeping African Americans oppressed with preachers using dogma to justify segregation and all sorts of other claptrap. The same thing played out with the abolitionists during slavery - at best, it's going to be a mixed bag if you look at it objectively.

[earthlover]

133. Bunk!

Let's at least try to be accurate here. Martin Luther King, Jr was a pastor! He did much of his civil rights activity through churches, as did many others in the civil rights movement.

Yes, religion also put down blacks, but it sure as hell wasn't in black churches!

King, and other political reformers had inspiration from their religion. I know this goes against the orthodoxy of anti-religious dogma....but it is historically accurate.

The civil rights movement would not have occured without the influence of chuches.

[varkam]

136. You're not addressing the point I made.

But I'm not going to argue with you. I think I've been called a bigot enough for a while. Have a good one!

[varkam]

74. Saying that religion should be condemned is not the same as saying...

that religious people should be sunned and condemned. Those are two very different statements.

As far as atheistic evangelizing...well, it's clear that while you may not be interested in tit-for-tat, you are neither interested in reasonable discussion on the topic.

[democrat2thecore]

83. It's just not the place

Frankly, it's too upsetting here at DU to discuss these things. Maybe I'm not strong enough to deal with it. I just know that it leaves me feeling angry that so many of my own Christian brothers and sisters can't see that the Sermon On The Mount ! Because of this neglect and the acceptance of the "American, suburbanized Jesus," so many have no interest in the message of Jesus - a revolutionary if there ever was one. We see a reaction to their stunted Christianity in the form of atheism (and I was there once) and it's just too much to deal with. Politics is why I come to DU. I usually, honestly, stay out of these threads, because of things like this. When it comes to politics - I bet we agree FAR more than we disagree.

[varkam]

87. I'm sure that we have much in common.

And I do understand the frustration that you feel, as I at one point used to share it. Once upon a time, I used to be a Baptist. What drew me to the faith originally were Jesus' central teachings of love and compassion. I tried to take those messages to heart, but I would be so frustrated when I would see my fellow Christians talking the talk but seemingly incapable of walking the walk. The reason I lost my faith is a long story, but suffice it to say that it has little to do with that inconsistency. Nevertheless, I do understand where you are coming from.

Religion is a sensitive and emotional topic for nearly everyone, and for many it is hard to stay level-headed about things (I know I am guilty of that on occasion).

I think that perhaps for some, atheism is merely a rebellion against the American Jesus that you speak of - but I think that regarding atheism as a reaction to the holy rollers is an inaccurate assessment. I'm sure that there are probably some atheists who originally left the fold as a means of rebelling, but there are several other persuasive reasons why I am an atheist (well, at least I find them persuasive).

But to the point, I'm sure that you and I agree on a good number of things and have a lot more in common than we might even realize. The problem with forums like this is that we tend to magnify differences as a means to the end of productive discussion. While that is necessary and indeed helpful for debating topics, I think it is important -- as you brought up -- that we shouldn't lose sight of the things that we do have in common (which is all to easy to do...I know it is for me).

:toast:

[democrat2thecore]

89. That was very well said

And I could use that beer about right now.
Thanks for understanding.

[jefferson_dem]

85. LOL!

You're funny.

[hisownpetard]

24. Really? How about atheism and agnosticism? nt

[varkam]

48. Last I checked they weren't religions. eom

[hisownpetard]

77. Not a religion, but definitely a set of beliefs that should be recognized.

[varkam]

78. Well, agnosticism isn't a belief at all.

At least not in the sense of religion - rather it is a philosophical position that holds that the truth either is not known or cannot be known. Going to the original greek: a (without) gnosis (knowledge). Put simply, the agnostic position is simply that the truth of the nature of god is not or cannot be known.

Atheism, in it's simple form, is rather just a lack of belief as opposed to a belief in an of itself. It is a result of the failure of the theist to satisfy the burden of proof.

[frogcycle]

2. glad you are so open minded

if your view prevails, then there will be no more snarky attacks on the other dem candidates when they make a faux pas, and we'll all be the better for it.

except, of course, if Hillary shows cleavage. That is still fair game. (joke)

[MadMaddie]

3. The problem is there are probably hundreds of gospel singers

out there that don't condone this guy's beliefs...this was a bad decision. The Obama campaign should have gauged that this was a bad decision. If these are the kind of decisons that he makes...and he doesn't think about the consequences...is this who we want making decisions on a national and international level?

I liked his message of "Hope", but apparantly that message of hope only applies to certain people who believe that gays can be "Cured"! This makes him no better than the guy in the WH.

Maybe it's not a big deal to some...but it impacts some of us directly.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

4. Do we know that Obama was aware of his views?

Apparently the guy has performed for prominent Dems, including the Clintons, for years. It's entirely possible that Sen. Obama wasn't familiar with the guy's writings or his anti-gay activities. I mean, I don't know, are they good friends or something?

[ElizabethDC]

12. Well, the campaigns should run background checks on people before they appear with the candidates

but it doesn't always happen.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

14. Yeah, they should probably run background checks on their donors too.

Norman Hsu.

[ElizabethDC]

16. Exactly. Which is why I said it doesn't always happen. n/t

[maximusveritas]

15. Even singers? I could understand that for speakers, but not for a singer.

Then again, in retrospect, maybe it's something they should be doing more often.

[ElizabethDC]

18. Singers, speakers, major donors, anybody. n/t

[maximusveritas]

13. He almost surely wasn't aware

But that hasn't stopped some here from recklessly saying that he was. This despite the fact that hardly any of them had even heard of the singer before today, much less his political views.

The guy was just supposed to be one of many singers at this concert. Do we really expect the Obama campaign to research all of these entertainer's political views to make sure they're not crazy? If he was a scheduled speaker, I could understand that, but the guy is just singing gospel music.

Now that we do know about his political views, I do expect the Obama campaign to respond appropriately. If they don't, then they can be held accountable.

[Goblinmonger]

32. Come on

How long did it take the rest of the world to figure it out? Who does Obama have working for him? Trained toads? Certainly someone should have (would have) come to him and said, "Um, Obama, this guy's an asshat." Don't know which one is worse: putting the singer up there knowing who he was or not having the brains/staff to know who he was. Neither one is especially presidential.

Plus, it kind of keeps in line with his previous leanings toward the religious as his "new base."

[cuke]

107. Someone knew gospel well enough to get this guy

I'm guessing that whoever that was knows all about McBigot's history. Gospel isn't that big a culture

[ronnykmarshall]

159. Trained toads!!! LOL!

Here they in a meeting.

[Rockholm]

141. He knew. He was made aware of the issue.

[Bitwit1234]

5. I haven't heard anybody condemn Obama because of his involvement

in traveling with these people or having a fund raiser or what ever he did. Not one person has posted a bash about him. I think you all are getting paranoid.

And a person has the right to be religious. And people have a right not to trust a lot of the so called religious leaders. Farwell, Robertson and the like do show that they are just a money grubbing bunch of hypocrites.

You ought to wait til people post a rant before you start one yourself. Obama's religion has never been a problem here on the journal. And I read a lot of the posts and I have never heard anything about his religion.

[killbotfactory]

27. I've seen a lot of people bash Obama for talking to Christians

Mostly from people who give him shit no matter what he does, but it happens.

[Goblinmonger]

36. I've given him shit on DU for it

but it's not for "talking to Christians" as you and many would like to put it. It is specifically who he is talking to and what he is saying. I also hate what Clinton is doing. Getting into bed with the fundies for the sake of votes is scary. We hated it when Bush did it and we should be calling out our own when they do it. I don't know why that is such a hard concept for people on here.

[killbotfactory]

65. I don't care if they pray to giant piles of flaming crap

If he can appeal to the progressive nature of religious voters, I consider it's a good thing. If that means he goes to church, fine.

[Goblinmonger]

90. So putting a gay basher

on stage is now called "appealing to the progressive nature of religious voters"? Odd. I thought it was called pandering and getting into bed with the wrong crowd. To each their own. I fear that Obama and Clinton, with their decisions to court the religious right, are going to do more to foster the creeping theocracy in our country rather than put a stop to it. If that doesn't bother you, I guess there is nothing I can do about that.

[Connie_Corleone]

42. Someone on here last night wrote, "Fuck Obama" regarding this.

If that's not a bash, i don't know what one is.

Or calling the gospel tour the "gay bashing tour". (That one was a headline from another website, but it was posted here also.)

[dsc]

6. We aren't condemning all religious people

just the bigot that Obama chose to give a platform to. That particular bigot is unacceptable. The fact he uses the Bible instead of Mein Komph to justify his bigotry is irrelevent to me.

[earthlover]

20. There are at least two posts on this thread condemning religion period n/t

[dsc]

21. anything prior to this thread

with its insulting OP practically inviting those comments.

[MNDemNY]

34. What is your point?

[earthlover]

98. My point was....There are at least two posts on this thread condemning religion period

Is there something about that that I can help you with with regard to comprehension of the English language?

[trotsky]

9. What a ridiculous red herring.

This isn't about religion. It isn't an attack on religious people.

This is about a bigot. Period.

[Ediacara]

17. When were people condemning the religious? All I've seen are condemnations of *bigots*

And condemnations of Obama's association with bigots.

[earthlover]

22. You asked, I answer....look above....

"All religion should be condemned" is one beauty....

Another beauty is...."society will never be free until the last priest is strangled with the entrails of the last politician"

Yes yes yes the religious ARE condemned by anti-religious bigots in exactly the same way that non-religious people are condemned by religious bigots like Falwell.

Seems as if both sides have their share of condemners.

I prefer the idea of "judge not...."

[sniffa]

29. maybe someday

we'LL sLaughter the reLigious in the name of souLLess atheism.

i see we're you're going with this and i approve. :thumbsup:

[Goblinmonger]

38. Oh, the poor religious

what will they ever do when people actually question the religion and what the religion wants society to look like. We should protect the minority and make sure religion doesn't get its feelings hurt.

Oh, yeah, religion doesn't have feelings and the religious are the majority. So what's all the bitching about for again?

[cuke]

53. That's pretty hypocritical

talking about strangling the religious with entrails is not the same as "hurt feelings" And it's not "questioning religion"

If you can condone those statements, you have no grounds for complaint

[sniffa]

145. just the feebLe minded

Lashing out to protect the onLy way they know. :boring:

[MNDemNY]

43. Are YOU judging THEM for their statements?

[cuke]

54. Yes, don't you?

[earthlover]

101. No...quite the opposite...I am wishing they did not judge

It is pretty obvious from the quotes I pointed to that some people are judging religion in a pretty negative way, very similar to the way the Falwells of right wing Christianity do....

I really disagree with the intolerance and hypocrisy of the religious right. It is pretty hard to do that, however, if you don't also disagree with the intolerance and hypocrisy of those who are bigoted against religion because some religious people are bigoted.

To me bigotry and judging others, looking down on them, particularly with regards to groups....is anathema to living in harmony with our fellow creatures on this planet. That is what is wrong with the radical religious right. And it is also wrong when people from the left who should friggin know better do exactly the same thing when they criticise religious people as a group.

[iverglas]

88. there's a pretty picture for precisely this purpose

Someone asks you:

When were people condemning the religious?

You respond (in one of several instances of this on this thread):

You asked, I answer....look above....
"All religion should be condemned" is one beauty....

Here ya go:


http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/index.htm

Nobody has condemned the religious, and nobody asked you about condemnations of religion.

Yes yes yes the religious ARE condemned by anti-religious bigots in exactly the same way that non-religious people are condemned by religious bigots like Falwell.

Yes yes yes I'm sure they are. If only you could find something to point to that would make this remark relevant to this discussion.

[earthlover]

103. I will try....

Quite frankly, the original point of this thread was not about religion at all, it was about homophobia....which sometimes is associated with religion and sometimes is not.

Then....quite early on.....there were some blatant anti-religion attacks.

I responded to them.

Remember, the original point was about homophobia, which is common enough to exist with or without religion.

And it wasn't me who brought up the topic of religion. It was the anti-religion bigots whose bigotry is in the same league with the homophobic bigots. Bigotry is an equal opportunity disease....it affects religious people and anti-religious people.

So my reaction was to people who changed the topic to bash religion. Perhaps the better question would be why not discuss homophobia instead of really reaching to bash Christians when not all Christians...not by a long shot....are homophobes.

Isn't enough bigotry enough without adding to it?

[iverglas]

127. oops, ya didn't push those goal posts hard enough

Your complaint about bashing of religious people still stands unfounded.

There is no such thing as an "anti-religion bigot". Bigotry targets people, not schools of thought.

So a very good question would be why you choose to use such a nasty word to describe people who disagree with you about religion.

People who stereotype and insult GLBT people are bigots. People who stereotype and insult people of any religion or all religions are bigots. People who hold the view that religion is idiotic and a negative influence on human societies are not.

Indeed, not all Christians are homophobes. The church I grew up in, the United Church of Canada, performs same-sex marriages, just for instance. Several churches and religious (and ethnic) associations intervened in court cases involving same-sex marriage here, on the side of the people claiming the right to marry the partner of their choice.

The particular Christian that Barack Obama has chosen to associate himself with is a homophobe, and he and his homophobia are embraced by many religious people. He and they are deserving of all scorn that might come their way.

[earthlover]

135. a reply

"People who stereotype and insult GLBT people are bigots. People who stereotype and insult people of any religion or all religions are bigots. People who hold the view that religion is idiotic and a negative influence on human societies are not".

So, then, if one holds the view that atheism is idiotic and a negative influence on human societies....this is not being bigoted against atheism? And atheists would be wrong to react to that sort of talk as an attack?

Well, let's see how your line of reasoning would apply to politics....what if a Republican said that liberalism was idiotic and a negative influence on human societies.....would anyone here on this board NOT take offense to that sort of bigoted tripe?

Why can't anti-religious people just leave the believers alone. Only the rabid ding-dongs among religious people go after and taunt atheists. Why do anti-religious people have to model their behavior after the worst religion has to offer?

[iverglas]

147. well, you asked

So, then, if one holds the view that atheism is idiotic and a negative influence on human societies....this is not being bigoted against atheism?

That's right.

And atheists would be wrong to react to that sort of talk as an attack?

That's right -- unless, of course, it was said in the context of an effort to incite hostility against atheists.

It really is possible to have and express opinions about things people think and do without hating the people or inciting hatred against them, or advocating or encouraging unequal treatment of them.

At least, for some of us.

Well, let's see how your line of reasoning would apply to politics....what if a Republican said that liberalism was idiotic and a negative influence on human societies.....would anyone here on this board NOT take offense to that sort of bigoted tripe?

Well, let's see how your line of reasoning would apply to politics: what if a Democrat said that rigiht-wingery was idiotic and a negative influence on human societies -- would anyone on the continent NOT take offense at that sort of opinion?

I think they would. And I think to call the opinion expressed "bigotry", in either case, is the absolute height of disingenunousness.

Either that, or I'm a bigot because I think going to work when one has a virus is idiotic and a negative influence on society.

Why can't anti-religious people just leave the believers alone.

Well, I'd be laughing for the rest of the day at the irony, except that nobody is actually saying:

Why can't the believers just leave the non-believers alone.

But hey, you just keep pretending that somebody is, so you can continue this silly charade.

Only the rabid ding-dongs among religious people go after and taunt atheists. Why do anti-religious people have to model their behavior after the worst religion has to offer?

Mu.

That's the appropriate answer to a "question" that is loaded with a false premise.

[varkam]

91. There's a mighty big difference, as I've tried to point out...

between condemning religion and condemning the religious. It is a small point, so I'm not accusing you of intentionally equivocating, but it is an important point. One can criticise a system of thought without criticising the adherents to a system of thought.

[earthlover]

105. ARe not priests adherents to a system of thought?

...."society will never be free until the last priest is strangled with the entrails of the last politician"

Let's be real here. There is bigotry out there. There are people who hate Christians. There are people who would like to blow up Muslims. There are people who would love to wipe out the Jewish religion. And, of course, there are people in various faiths who would like to wipe out homosexuality, women's rights, they have used religion to support slavery, bigamy, and a host of other evils.

My point is...if you hate bigotry, you should start with yourself. If you hate the bigotry of Christians and you are an atheist, you should also hate the bigotry against Christians. If you are a Christian and don't like the hatred against your group, you shouldn't practice bigotry against other groups. It is called the golden rule. A principle that is advocated by every religion, by the way, and practiced by few.

The Bible says something about not looking at the speck in someone else's eye when there is something equally large in one's own eye. It preaches about judging not, and by the measure you judge others you will be judged. That is, in my view, a very good moral priniciple. Don't be judgmental. This is something that the religious right has ignored. I wish it was something that everyone followed as a moral principle...not a religious principle.....just don't be a bunch of judgmental fools who are just as bad as the ones you condemn.

Sorry, we are all capable of being dumb shits.

[varkam]

111. .

Let's be real here. There is bigotry out there. There are people who hate Christians. There are people who would like to blow up Muslims. There are people who would love to wipe out the Jewish religion. And, of course, there are people in various faiths who would like to wipe out homosexuality, women's rights, they have used religion to support slavery, bigamy, and a host of other evils.


I certainly hope that you're not insinuating that I am a bigot and hate Christians. If you think that I was being literal in posting that, or suggesting that people go out, eviscerate politicians and then strangle priests with their entrails, then I suggest you take a time-out and a deep breath.

My point is...if you hate bigotry, you should start with yourself. If you hate the bigotry of Christians and you are an atheist, you should also hate the bigotry against Christians. If you are a Christian and don't like the hatred against your group, you shouldn't practice bigotry against other groups. It is called the golden rule. A principle that is advocated by every religion, by the way, and practiced by few.

Who can you say hates Christians, around here?

The Bible says something about not looking at the speck in someone else's eye when there is something equally large in one's own eye. It preaches about judging not, and by the measure you judge others you will be judged. That is, in my view, a very good moral priniciple. Don't be judgmental. This is something that the religious right has ignored. I wish it was something that everyone followed as a moral principle...not a religious principle.....just don't be a bunch of judgmental fools who are just as bad as the ones you condemn.

That's deliciously ironic.

Apparently you missed the entire point of what I posted. There is a difference between being critical of a religion and being critical of it's followers. I am an anti-theist in that I think that religion tends to be harmful for humanity on the whole, but also my closest friend is the son of a Greek Orthodox priest (and I'm friends with him, as well). I think it's pretty easy, actually, to distinguish between a system of thought and the adherents to that system of thought.

[earthlover]

116. No need for 4 letter words unless you are talking about love....

No, I am no insinuating that YOU hate Christians. Don't take what said personally! However, the quote from Voltaire, however misquoted, WAS an a bigoted attack on priests, who, by the way, are adherants to a school of thought, not to mention practicioners of a religion. Voltaire, in this example, was being anti-intellectual, intolerant, as well as anti-religion! So XXXX you, Voltaire! I guess that statement will rile the politically correct crowd!

I am glad that you don't think you are anti-religion. Heck, you have a friend who is religious! How quaint! Reminds me of a racist neighbor of mine who said he wasn't a racist because he had a friend who was black.

Fact is....as much as you want to split hairs about the difference between being bigoted against a group (religion) and being bigoted about a person who follows the group (Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc)....the fact remains, as any witness to Adolph Hitler can tell you, that when you start condemning a group, this is the sort of thing that leads to individuals being put down. So, I guess, if you were a follwer of Hitler, you could use a similar arguement...that you were talking about a group, not individuals! Senseless!!!!!!!!!!!!

My point is quit judging. Quit judging religious people. Quit judging non-religious people. Quit judging gays, people with beards, left handed people, adulterers, tree huggers, peaceniks, and religious people as well. How can we condemn Bush for making a crusade against Islam when we in effect have a similar attitude towards religious people in general?

My point goes way, way beyond your post.

But as to your questions as to who hates Christians here...well, I am sorry, but I have frequently seen anti-Christian statements on these boards. There are a LOT of folks who spout bigotry. Some are so maligned that they try to associate all Christians with the actions of the Falwells. This is, by the way, an insult to all the liberal Christians out there, and I am one of them! It is really tiring hearing all this anti-Christianity crap out there, when us liberal Christians hate the Falwells even more than you do!

[varkam]

117. So, if I perpetrated a bigoted attack on priests...

then I think you're calling me a bigot. Please, correct me if I am wrong.

I don't think that the quote was meant to be taken literally, as was pointed out. In other words, the priest was symbolic for the power of the Church and the politician symbolic for the power of the state.

I am glad that you don't think you are anti-religion. Heck, you have a friend who is religious! How quaint! Reminds me of a racist neighbor of mine who said he wasn't a racist because he had a friend who was black.

I am an anti-theist. You continue, yet again, to miss the point. If you're not going to read what I'm writing, why bother responding? Oh, and hey bonus points for, yet again, insinuating that I am bigoted.

Fact is....as much as you want to split hairs about the difference between being bigoted against a group (religion) and being bigoted about a person who follows the group (Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc)....the fact remains, as any witness to Adolph Hitler can tell you, that when you start condemning a group, this is the sort of thing that leads to individuals being put down. So, I guess, if you were a follwer of Hitler, you could use a similar arguement...that you were talking about a group, not individuals! Senseless!!!!!!!!!!!!


And now you just compared my stance to Hitler - what was that thing that you were saying about the golden rule? On that line of logic, it's only a few more years before we start the genocide against Republicans :eyes:

My point is quit judging. Quit judging religious people. Quit judging non-religious people. Quit judging gays, people with beards, left handed people, adulterers, tree huggers, peaceniks, and religious people as well. How can we condemn Bush for making a crusade against Islam when we in effect have a similar attitude towards religious people in general?

I'd be laughing right now if it wasn't so absurd. You just insinuated that I was bigoted (twice!), and then compared my stance to the Holocaust and you're telling me to quit judging people. Can I have some of what you're smoking? Moreover, I'm not judging any person at all when I say that I am an anti-theist.

But as to your questions as to who hates Christians here...well, I am sorry, but I have frequently seen anti-Christian statements on these boards. There are a LOT of folks who spout bigotry. Some are so maligned that they try to associate all Christians with the actions of the Falwells. This is, by the way, an insult to all the liberal Christians out there, and I am one of them! It is really tiring hearing all this anti-Christianity crap out there, when us liberal Christians hate the Falwells even more than you do!

So does making a statement critical of Christianity mean that you hate all Christians? I have never equated all Christians as one big group of gay-hating fascists, so I don't know why you automatically assume that I have. Perhaps you should take your own advice about judging people.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[varkam]

120. I'm not making any excuses for it.

And I don't agree with bigotry at all, in any form. Please explain to me how one can be bigoted against an idea. It seems like this is just a convenient way for you to attack people that you disagree with, rather than any honest attempt on your part to have a reasonable discussion.

Fact is, you can't split hairs. If you attack a religion...like Hitler atacked the Jews....heck, before he was done, he was throwing Christians in jail such as Bonhoeffer....then how can you with a straight face say you are not also attacking individuals?

Easy - because I am being critical of a system of thought, of ideas - not of people. On that line of logic, if I were to disagree with affirmative action then obviously I am bigoted against African Americans. If I were to disagree with communism, then obviously I hate communists. People deserve respect in my book automatically - the same is not true of ideas.

It's like saying you hate homosexuality, say homosexuality is responsible for the decay of our culture....and then splitting hairs by saying you didn't say anything against individual gays....

That has absolutely nothing to do with this because homosexuality makes no claims about our world or how we should live. In other words, that is a non-sequitur.

Be honest. It is your constitutional right to dislike religion. It is your constitutional right to pump yourself up and strut your stuff by being so ever brilliant not to believe in a god. But it is a far cry different to go beyond that strutting and belief structure and condemn others who do not share your particular perception of the universe.
When you condemn others for being in a group, you are being a bigot. Maybe you are aware enough to know that if you attack gays, or blacks, etc you are being a bigot. Maybe it has not even entered your mind that if you attack theists in general you are also being bigoted. Well, denial is not a river in Africa....

I'm not pumping myself up about my disbelief, nor am I condemning others. People are free and should be free to believe whatever they would like about the unknown, and I have no problem with that. Go back, read that last sentence again slowly. Let it sink in for a minute before you move on. Done? Good.

I'm not condemning anyone at all, period. I take theists on a person by person basis. Some are good, some are bad, and most are inbetween - just like any other group of people. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.

[earthlover]

121. I understand it. I agree. About time you did! Don't judge by groups. Peace

[varkam]

123. Jesus. Christ.

I never did! Congratulations - you are the single most frustrating poster I have ever encountered on the internet. Have a nice day!

[iverglas]

128. damn, those goalposts are heavy

I am glad that you don't think you are anti-religion.

Varkam has SAID (as have I) that he IS anti-religion.

Why would you keep saying that he says he isn't??

So that you can keep pretending that being opposed to religion means hating people who are religious, and saying that if varkam is opposed to religion he hates religious people?

I guess.

It doesn't really seem to be working for you, so why you do it is still a mystery.

[earthlover]

130. just plain goofy...

I have nothing against being an atheist. I could say that some of my friends are atheists, but that line has already been taken! In fact, I respect atheism and never would try to argue against it. I am not anti-atheist.

Now you, on the other hand, and others, say you are anti-theist, anti-religion. Well, that is an attitude I have difficulty with. It smacks of bigotry, and the same sort of better-than-thou self-righteousness that has given the religious right a bad name.

I think people should believe how they believe, and being anti-religion may be different in attitude than the anti-atheist beliefs of the religious right, but I fail to see much difference. Just different brands of the same anti-those-who-disagree, ie, bigotry.

To me, nobody can prove the existence of god or the nonexistence of god, so it is just plain goofy in my view for anybody to be anti-religion or anti-atheist. Why be anti when you you have another option available to you...ie....live and let live.

Is anyone giving you points for being anti-religion? Does it make you feel superior, with lots of people you can look down your nose at? Well, this is just how the religious bigots feel too...they think they are superior and others are wrong, and they are anti-sin just as you are anti-religion.

[varkam]

139. Still not reading posts, I see.

Then I guess I won't bother try to correct the gaping holes in your reasoning or the blatant hypocrisy you've been displaying in this thread.

ETA: Since I am a glutton for punishment, I figured I would at least try. I'll put the important parts in bold, to help you follow along.

Now you, on the other hand, and others, say you are anti-theist, anti-religion. Well, that is an attitude I have difficulty with. It smacks of bigotry, and the same sort of better-than-thou self-righteousness that has given the religious right a bad name.

For one thing, the poster you are responding to has never said anything of the sort. I did. Anti-Theism is not an attitude, it is a philosophical position that takes issue with theism as a system of thought - not one that takes issue with theists as a group. I do not think that I am better than anyone else here.

I think people should believe how they believe, and being anti-religion may be different in attitude than the anti-atheist beliefs of the religious right, but I fail to see much difference. Just different brands of the same anti-those-who-disagree, ie, bigotry.

I am not anti-theists. I am anti-theism. I do not disdain or look down own theists as a group. I do not think that theists in general are less intellgent or less moral than I am, nor have I ever made any claim to the contrary.

To me, nobody can prove the existence of god or the nonexistence of god, so it is just plain goofy in my view for anybody to be anti-religion or anti-atheist. Why be anti when you you have another option available to you...ie....live and let live.

Well, I would offer arguments to you that don't amount to debating ontology - but I doubt you would read them.

Is anyone giving you points for being anti-religion? Does it make you feel superior, with lots of people you can look down your nose at? Well, this is just how the religious bigots feel too...they think they are superior and others are wrong, and they are anti-sin just as you are anti-religion.

Again, the poster you are responding to never said he/she was an anti-theist. For me I do not feel superior to theists, I do not look down on theists, I do not hate theists. Rather, I take them on an individual, case by case basis just like any other group of people.

Perhaps if you could stop falling over yourself to call me a bigot for five minutes, you might have a better chance of understanding what anti-theism is and what anti-theism is not.

[earthlover]

140. I do sense a feeling of superiority in your post

Maybe if you could put your attitude that religion is something to be condemned for five minutes you would see that I think that both theists and atheists should just live and let live instead of being anti each other.

[iverglas]

148. maybe some religious people really do live in a different world

Maybe if you could put your attitude that religion is something to be condemned for five minutes you would see that I think that both theists and atheists should just live and let live instead of being anti each other.

It would be the world where words mean the opposite of what they mean in this world.

Are you a religion? If not, how would you justify saying that someone who is anti-religion (as I am, I seem to need to clarify) is anti- you or any other theist?

That seems like a simple enough question, so maybe it will help focus our thoughts here.

I am anti-religion.
You are not a religion.
Accordingly, me being anti-religion does not mean that I am anti-you.

(I might be anti-you for entirely different reasons, of course.)

And again: I don't "condemn" religion. I object to it and I oppose it. As a belief system.

I do not harbour negative feelings about people who adhere to a religion because of their adherence to a religion. I may harbour negative feelings about people who adhere to a religion for completely different reasons. Maybe they spit on the street, or beat their dogs. I'd harbour negative feelings about them then. And maybe they say vile things about other people and groups of people based on those people's personal characteristics and private lives. Hmm.

You get to hear my speech now.

In the last 40 years or so, I have campaigned and voted for practitioners of religions, including an RC priest who was one of my elected representatives for some time. I have been a political candidate myself, and I know RC priests and people of every religion you can name who have voted for me. In my former profession, I once represented a Sikh priest, and I represented numerous people who were persecuted in their home countries because of their religion. I worked with people acting in their "official" religious capacity, as clergy, on behalf of mutual clients. I worked with very religious people on various causes involving international solidarity and human rights. I was reared in the "social gospel", a religious tradition in Canada carried on by many churches (for instance, the churches now involved in the campaign to protect water as a public resource), and particularly by my former church, which has ordained women for eons, has ordained gay and lesbian clergy for quite some time now, and has been performing same-sex marriages for a while. I taught Sunday School and was confirmed precociously, at 13. Within a couple of years, I realized that while I appreciated many things about that church, I did not share its members' belief in a supreme being or afterlife. I wandered off. When my grandfather died about 30 years ago, my mother and I arranged the funeral in his home church, co-officiated by the new minister of that (Protestant) church and an RC nun and Menonnite clergyman who had known my grandfather in his nursing home and ministered to him. When my grandmother died, we had no service, because she had wanted none, but had a gathering in the church basement with a little music and a little talk, one of the talkers being a lesbian clergywoman in that denomination who had known my grandparents as a child, and another being an old fundamentalist Baptist neighbour of theirs.

My attitude is precisely "live and let live", and I will never speak a word about anyone's religion unless they put it in issue somehow. I EXPECT THE SAME.

I have never in my life expressed religious bigotry or acted in a bigoted manner toward another human being, from when my best friend as a young child was RC to when I chat with the woman in the hijab checking me out at the grocery store -- much as I believe that the practices of both their religions are foully misogynist, just for starters.

So sweety, I find your accusations of bigotry deeply offensive, basically because they are false through and through, and I really find false accusations made against anyone, particularly for the purpose of stirring up negative feeling against them as it appears yours may be, to be deeply offensive.

[varkam]

151. I'm not anti-theists, for the 50th time.

I'm not anti-religious people, I don't hate theists, I'm not attacking a group, and I don't wish they were all dead. I take theists on a case-by-base basis.

[earthlover]

143. the definition of bigotry

big·ot·ry Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries. 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




—Synonyms 1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.
------------------------

Note that according to the definition of bigotry you don't get a free pass by saying you are not attacking individuals. Intolerance of a creed, belief or opinion that differs from one's own is bigotry!

Just sayin

[varkam]

152. I am not intolerant of theism.

I think that people should be free to worship as they please, and I have never indicated otherwise. I really don't care if you worship Jesus, Mohammad, Zeus, God, or Poseidon. I don't care if you worship ten gods, twenty gods, or no gods at all. People should be free to worship as they please. I don't hate theism or theists, at all. Rather, I think theism as a system of thought is harmful and I have arguments to make my case -- arguments that I won't go into here, as you will undoubtedly not read them.

For someone who doesn't judge other people, you sure toss the word "bigot" around a lot.

[earthlover]

161. By one's fruits....

You think religion as a system of thought "is harmful" your words. Notice that you did not say "may be harmful"..."sometimes is harmful"...."often is harmful". Just categorically harmful.

I could make an arguement that religion OFTEN is harmful, or...perhaps to be more precise....religious fanaticism or extremism and the blind followers of same. The crusades, the witch hunts, the inquisition, the rise of the religious right today, the bashing of gays in the name of the lord, are all examples. How many innocents have been slaughtered and tortured in the name of the prince of peace?

Of course, there have been secular evils as well, witness Stalin and a host of others.

Your use of the term "is harmful" point blank, however, I think is telling. Religion is not always harmful. It has inspired beauty, heroism, justice, help for the poor, pacifism, civil rights, wonderful music, archietecture, just for starters. So to say it IS harmful categorically is pretty hard to proove.

Sometimes, however, it is not religion per se as much as failure to follow it that causes problems. For example the Catholic Church has in a catachism the principle of a "just war". You can look it up. The Iraq War did not measure up to the requirements of a just war, but lots of Catholics supported Iraq anyhow. So what is the problem here...religion, or not following its teachings? The Catholic Church also opposes capital punishment, but some don't follow its teachings.
And, as to the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, there are a lot of Christians of all stripes who don't even have a clue this stuff is in the Bible!

I know you could come up with other examples of religion being harmful and I would not argue that it often is. There are some things in this world that are not either black or white. Some things inspire good or they inspire evil. They bring out the best in people, or sometimes they act as a substitute for morality. Religion is one of them.

By your fruits I think is the best way to tell the difference. Whether religious or not.

[varkam]

162. .

You think religion as a system of thought "is harmful" your words. Notice that you did not say "may be harmful"..."sometimes is harmful"...."often is harmful". Just categorically harmful.

Well I never offered my full position, because I figured that you were never interested in hearing about it. I have never claimed that religion is categorically and always harmful - that is your assumption.

While on the subject, here is a quote that sums it up:

"Marx was wrong. Religion is not the opiate of the people. Opium suggests something soporific, numbing, dulling. Too often religion has been an aphrodisiac for horror, a benzedreine for bestiality. At its best it has lifted spirits and raised spires. At its worst it has turned entire civilizations into cemetaries."

-Phillip Adams

Thank you for not calling me a bigot in that post.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

23. People have a right to religion. They also have a right to be bigots.

I revere people's right to be bigots... quite seriously.

But that fundemental right doesn't preclude other people from criticizing them.

Bigotry in the guise of religion doesn't get a special pass.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. I have not yet decided between Obama and Clinton

I find much to admire in both of them.

But as a gay man, if this concert went on as planned today (I haven't heard one way or the other), I will be extremely disappointed in Obama, probably enough to confirm my support for Clinton.

It's hard to explain the depth of my hatred for the ex-gay movement and its promoters. No candidate who likes these people is a friend of mine.

[More Than A Feeling]

26. Just goes to show that religion is meaningless when it comes to morals

People who purport to be in the same religion come down on opposite sides on a multitude of moral issues. Their common religion isn't having an influence.

[earthlover]

164. For one thing, there is no such thing as a "common religion"--there are hundreds if not 1000s

Yes, religious people disagree with each other. Some are like Falwell. Many others are NOT!

[MNDemNY]

31. So, it's OK for YOUR candidate to promote

homophobes and their views?

[DURHAM D]

35. You of all people asking for "perspective".

How ironical.

[Cameron27]

41. I know,

what a joke.

[cuke]

56. A remarkable lack of self-awareness

[Totally Committed]

39. I'm sorry. There is no "perspective". It's WRONG.

Period.

TC

[Solon]

45. Only a seriously fucked up person would equate calling McCloset an asshole as being anti-religious.

I don't give a flying fuck where his homophobic beliefs come from, they do not deserve respect, they deserve condemnation, period.

Oh, and your inserting of my Religion into equating with this shit, I'm offended, deeply, that you would even THINK about associating my religion with McCloset being condemned.

[AtomicKitten]

49. This has nothing to do with religion, really.

Homophobes and particularly those that subscribe to the "pray the gay away" sect have some serious issues. But these views are McClurkin's, not Obama's who has an otherwise good LGBT record.

It's hard to tell who are genuinely upset about this and who are using it as a cudgel to slam Obama. DU is funny like that.

[Totally Committed]

51. I'm genuinely upset.

I think he'll probably do the right thing here. I just wish he'd do it sooner rather than later.

Got any pull, AK?

TC

[AtomicKitten]

55. I know you are. ;)

I'm working the channels available to me and I am hopeful this will be resolved to your and everyone concerned's satisfaction.

[Zero Division]

52. I'm waiting to see how Obama addresses this.

I'm honestly puzzled by many DUers' confidence that Obama should have known about McClurkin (Is he really that well known outside of those interested in gospel music?). I do think it would be preferable for Obama to completely disassociate himself/his campaign from individuals with such virulent views as McClurkin's. The other question that seems relevant to me in this matter is whether Obama is giving McClurkin a platform to speak his hateful opinions or just to sing. Giving him a platform to speak would be much worse in my opinion.

Even when I imagine my least favorite Democratic candidates doing the same, I don't think I'd rush to judgment in those cases, either.

[democrat2thecore]

61. People throw the word "fascism" a lot around here

Do people not see the fascist-like behavior they are asking of their leaders?

Before Senator Obama has anyone do anything, they expect him to question supporters with a long list of questions to determine if there is ANYTHING that could POSSIBLY offend ANYONE?

Idealogical purity is a dangerous path to tread.
Insisting that others follow the same path is more than dangerous.

[Solon]

64. That's dumb...

Would you say that critics of a candidate who sponsored an event that included Prussian Blue in as an act are asking for "fascist" behavior from their candidate when they say they should drop them like a bad habit?

[killbotfactory]

67. There is a difference

As far as I can tell, homosexuality is not something this guy sings about, and has never been a topic in his music or part of his act in any way. Prussian Blue's racism is part of their act.

[Solon]

68. That would be the only difference...

and I actually wouldn't be surprised if some of his songs were homophobic, though probably less obvious than Prussian Blue.

[democrat2thecore]

70. Now THAT is what is dumb

Comparing a well-known crazy white supremacist band and a Christian singer? Like everyone knew where this guy stood on all the issues?

Some of you evangelistic, fundamentalist atheists can make DU a very unwelcome place for Christians on the Left. It's sad.

[Solon]

71. First things first, I'm no atheist...

Second, this guy IS a crazy homophobic asshole, I do not see why him being a Christian has anything to do with it.

[democrat2thecore]

76. I agree with you there...and, by the way....

You are MY kind of Democrat! I am a member of the Socialist Party, the IWW, consider labor issues of PARAMOUNT importance, yet shunted to the side. I have a framed picture of Eugene Debs in my office (gets lots of "who?"). I took a look at your blog and knew right away we would get along. A good, Missouri heartland socialist. Just like the "good ole days." I was up in your area not long ago. Without "outing" myself, I have spoken at the Institute for Labor Studies in Kansas City and have been on the radio show they produce a few times.

[Solon]

79. Maybe we got off on the wrong foot...

I don't remember seeing you yesterday when this thing really blew up, you should see this subthread right here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3628257&mesg_id=3629007

And notice my exchanges with this guy, he goes damned near far enough to claim that one of the basic precepts of Christianity HAS to be homophobia, I quickly disputed that notion.

Sadly enough, if you didn't notice, my blog only gets updated sporadically, not exactly something that endears it to get a lot of hits. They come in spurts, so to speak, when the mood suits me.

[democrat2thecore]

81. Yes, I know I missed all the poo/fan collisions

I'm glad I did. I would have sided with YOU, actually. As for the blog, I just put you in my RSS reader (I use BlogBridge)....then it doesn't matter when you update. When you do - I'll read. You're right, we got off on the wrong foot. I'm sorry for that. I looked at your blog and immediately felt the brotherhood of kindred spirits. Oh....Single Payer is my BIG issue. I am adamantly opposed to all "change" that will keep the status quo of the medical-industrial complex in place.

[Solon]

82. To keep on topic...

I agree on UHC, obviously, but to keep on topic, I have tried to keep my criticism, OK, outright slamming, confined to McCloset(my nickname for the asshole), and certain Obama supporters who have made some rather broad brushes against my friends in the GBLT community.

[Goblinmonger]

84. Correct me if I am wrong

but Prussian Blue are also Christian.

You should read O'Reilly's book so you can use the "evil atheist" meme more effectively.

[iverglas]

80. I just read through most of a large thread on this issue

-- being a curious foreigner with a life-long commitment to equal rights -- and I'm damned if I can figure out what you're talking about.

i support and will continue to support Barack Obama. I do not approve of the singer he had in his gospel thing today.
I have not had a chance to read much on it yet, so aside from the little I've gathered, I don't approve.
I am also not religious. However, I have friends who are.
I won't condemn all religious people on the basis of one messed up guy.

Eh? I need a roadmap here, I'm afraid.

You don't condemn one person on the basis of one messed up guy. Well, bully for you. Bully for me too -- I'm an adamant atheist, but have worked with and on behalf of people of just about every religion and sect on earth, so I pretty obviously don't condemn them.

Unfortunately, that seems to be just about exactly what the performer in question does.

And I do condemn people who propagate hatred against any vulnerable / disadvantaged / stereotyped group.

I don't give a shit whether people claim religious belief as their reason for doing that, or just do it because they're vile people.

I don't waste my time addressing their alleged religious beliefs in the matter. I get straight to the point: they're vile people. Their choice of religious belief is their business, not mine. Their public behaviour on matters of public concern are my business.

On this issue, I've seen a lot of denunciation of the performer for his public behaviour, and of Obama for associating himself with it. I haven't actually seen a lot of denuniciation of religion in general or anybody's in particular.

I also see that going over board and half cocked because of one person and condemning everyone else as being the same is like being the same as the fringe right wingers who condemn all democrats as hating America, or are terrorists.

I may see persecution complexes ...

[Bluebear]

92. Fine. I have gathered the facts. Obama is appearing with someone who is vehemently anti-gay.

And if Obama shares the stage with him, it will be the final piece of "fact-gathering" I will need.

[sniffa]

146. ...

:rofl:

[Colobo]

109. All this hatred Obama is getting just inspires me to donate more, and I will right now.

[AlCzervik]

124. stop excusing bad decision making and judgment with other peoples bad decision making

and judgment, once again grow up.

[CyberPieHole]

132. I can no longer support Barack Obama.

I don't tolerate bigotry in anyone I associate with. I cannot support a candidate who does.

[NMMNG]

154. Who is condemning religious people?

The issue is Obama going on a gospel tour with rabid homophobes. Period. Where you're getting this "everybody is condemning religious people" stuff from I have no bloody idea. We're condemning homophobes, and a politician who thinks it's a groovy idea to promote them as part of his campaign. Not to mention alleged progressives who support him in his efforts to do so.

I don't see why people don't get that.