I think it is despicable to silence faith-based expressions of policy and politics.

[Perky]

Not because faith-based politics are always right (because they are not).

and not because they are alwsys wrong (because they are not)

But because we live in a pluralistic and secular society everybody gets the right to speak their minds and their hearts based on what they believe. Athiest sentiments should hold no less or no more sway than faith-based sentiments.

Barack Obama's faith and his outward expression of faith bears profoundly on what motivated him to be a public servant. The suggestion that he is pandering to religious voters is atonce both infantile and profoundly bigoted.

Every American has the right to belive whatever they want to believe. That a man should have the courage to stand as a Democrat and say "I am a Christian" is laudable. Jimmy Carter was known as a "born again" believer and ran for president in no small way on that basis, but certainly on other basis as well. We have had a generation of Republicans shills in the White House who invoked God's name the same way they wrapped themselves in the flag, and not one of them said what Obama said in his speech on Saturday. Look at the issues he talks about and judge him on everything he says..

You may not like it. It may scare you. But to dismiss him because of his faith without hearing the substance of what he says is incredibly narrow-minded and very unDEMOCRATIC. Is there any real difference between those who say his Christianity is deficient because he is a Democrat and those who say he can not be trusted because he is a Christian?


Maybe you folks who are now so willing to reject him on the basis of his faith and Rev. Rob Schenck should start a mutual adoration club. You seem to be saying pretty much the same thing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=176957&mesg_id=176957

[Bluebear]

1. "the courage to stand as a Democrat and say "I am a Christian" is laudable."

Well Perky, to be fair, every Presidential candidate in my lifetime seems to have been Christian. What would be notable, no, earth-shattering, is a candidate who stands up and say "I am an atheist".

[zanne]

5. Damn right, Bluebear.

And if somebody thinks they're being persecuted for being a Christian, they should try being an atheist.

[niyad]

14. or a pagan.

[Occulus]

15. Or gay.

[Bluebear]

19. (doing Danny Thomas spit take)

Yeah, a gay candidate. THAT could happen! :sarcasm:

[yardwork]

162. or a gay pagan

One day I said to my mom, "I would love to have a president who was like me - a lesbian pagan vegetarian." My mom laughed. That made me kind of mad, actually.

Apparently it is completely out of the question impossible to even consider ever electing a lesbian, pagan, vegetarian candidate as president.

Why? I'm expected to go out and vote for heterosexual Christian males - and I do. I have nothing against anybody for being a heterosexual Christian meat-eating male. Why do so many of them have so much against me?

Food for thought.

[redwitch]

52. treehugger!

:-)

[Greybnk48]

7. Amen to that Bluebear.

Any candidate who admitted to being an Atheist would be crucified, metaphorically speaking (I hope).

[Totallybushed]

11. No, we've had those, too.

(see Communist Party. What would be earth-shaking is for one to win.

[Leopolds Ghost]

45. What would be earth-shaking is if the left realized its obsession with atheism as a political value

Cost it a HUGE amount of support when some people realized that anti-religious diatribes were just as distracting of the real issues as religion-on-religion pogroms, while others merely took offense, and having been asked by the hard left to pick sides, sided with their culture and family.

[trotsky]

70. Hi, LG.

Could you perhaps point me to just one relatively well-known politician or Democratic party official, or ANY left-leaning person who gets significant face time in the media who goes on "anti-religious diatribes" that ended up costing the party a "HUGE amount of support"?

No need to rush - I'll wait.

[Leopolds Ghost]

75. It's not necessarily what we do, it's what we don't do.

We allow the secularists to be isolated by not deigning to make common cause with religiously motivated social justice advocates.

Many of those folks became disillusioned with the New Left and simply gave up, and their children are being taught by others to hate the secularists and not make common cause with them.

This allows the oligarchs to "Divide and Rule".

They defeated the hard left on the very day -- the very hour -- various leftist organizations decided that "the revolution" would not happen until the populace could be educated out of its "superstitions" and that nobody could be taught to participate in said "revolution" unless they were willing to be called superstitious and abandon said superstition.

You can't make common cause with someone over the issues you agree with, unless you can develop a framework for seeing that the issues you disagree with either do not matter or are not in as much opposition as you'd like to think.

For instance, secular Democrats who say "why do those people vote against their interests" it is like saying "I support people who sleep in their kitchen, even though I do not approve. Why do people who sleep in their kitchen continue to vote Republican when they could be making common cause with me? Here I am bending over backwards to tolerate the fact that they sleep in their kitchen!"

Otherwise we end up in a situation where the next generation of Bush's Criminal Gang come to power on a wave of bloodshed against politically isolated secularists, after the lines have been drawn to the point that the secularists have the only viable progressive party, which is subject to persecution and violence, and the few remaining liberal Christians (which is to say Christians following the religion of their ancestors) have no place to go. This is the situation faced by liberal Muslims in the Middle East (who are also the Muslims following the religion of their ancestors.)

Fundamentalism as we understand it today is a recent invention, we must take that into account as well. It differs qualitatively in how it justifies intolerance and violence. It is a postmodern coping mechanism for people who really have no beliefs and have been torn from their cultural moorings. It is basically a soft form of fascism.

(there are MANY, MANY ideologies that justify intolerance and violence, it seems all do, eventually. Just look at the DLC, or what happened to the Republican Party in the 1870s, or atheism as practiced by Stalin, or...)

[trotsky]

132. No, that's not what you said.

Now first off, let's just stop using "secularists" as a bad term, just like O'Reilly does. We SHOULD all be secularists - that's what the Founders wanted this country to be, that's what they were, that's what they felt good citizens should be. Secular simply means government is separate from religion. No biggie. Doesn't mean that we need to round up religious folks and put them in re-education camps. It's not a dirty word - but the right wing (and you, apparently) are trying to make it such.

Anyway, you initially said that "the left" was actively alienating people with "anti-religious diatribes." Apparently realizing that position is indefensible, you now change your argument to say it's that "the secularists" don't want to "make common cause" with religious social justice groups. Personally, I've never seen this. Well, I have seen it, but only when the religious groups insist on injecting religion into the policy and laws. Is that wrong? The evil mean nasty secularists are actually on the side of the constitution. Are you suggesting we look the other way when it comes to melding church and state, just so we can win a few votes of the radical religious?

It's hard to find a more consistent and loyal block of Democratic voters than the atheists, agnostics, and other freethinkers. Yet every candidate we vote for is religious, and usually reminds us of this whenever they speak. "God bless America" and all that. Looks like the evil secularists are a lot more tolerant and committed to their political values than the religious voters you think we're scaring away - despite nominating quite religious candidates.

I dunno, LG, I think you've constructed this nasty strawman of a secular leftist, and you seek to then use that strawman as a scapegoat if Democratic ideals and politicians don't always prevail.

I say it can be a lot more complicated than that - but evidently you're looking for someone to blame, and evil secularists are your chosen target. Good luck with attacking your allies.

[Le Taz Hot]

144. Ah, now, see?

THAT was a great rebuttal!

:applause:

[Totallybushed]

146. I think that

this but only when the religious groups insist on injecting religion into the policy and laws. is the sticking point for all of us, right as well as left.

The right considers atheism to be a religion as much as Christianity or Judaism, etc. It is an opinion, and practice, about the supernatural, or lack thereof, and is not scientific as God, or His absence, is not disprovable. I won't go into probabilities.

All of us have a world-view, and we all try to shape society to fit our world-view. Every policy that the left has can be justified from either a secular, or a religious, set of values. Every policy that the right has can, too.

But it is our basic belief that really determines why we stand for what we do. I remember reading someone once, I don't remember who, who said, "Everything is a matter of taste, including morals". I don't know that I totally agree with that statement, in fact, I know that I do not. However, it still has a lot of truth to it, IMO.

[trotsky]

150. So that's another thing they're wrong about.

Heck, even some DUers interpret secularism as the enforcement of atheism. It's not - enforcing atheism would mean explicitly telling people there is no god, denying religious exemptions for stuff, etc. Just because the right is wrong about it doesn't mean that we have to act as if they weren't, and start blurring the line between church and state. It requires a clear emphasis about what secularism is, and how it protects the religious freedom of everyone.

[Totallybushed]

152. I guess it

depends on the definition of "secular", which is not the same as "separation of church and state", as you seem to think.

However, don't get me wrong, I'm not defending their position, just trying to share my understanding of it.

[trotsky]

155. So how do you define secular?

Secular, in particular when referring to governments, means the state is free from religious/church influences. As least that's what I've been taught. This I assume is a good thing, and something that just about all DUers could agree with. Or do you disagree?

Here's a good little article:
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/050811.htm

And here's one that goes more in depth on secularism:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_sec.htm

[Totallybushed]

156. well,

I would define "separation of church & state" as not favoring one religious (or non-r) viewpoint over over another, in doctrine. However, in policy, well that's a different story, as we all have some basis for deciding what policies are desirable or not.

For instance, A state might decide, for religious reasons, not to allow the sale of alcohol. This would be wrong. It might also decide, for reasons of public safety, not to allow the sale of alcohol. This would be, IMO, foolish, but not "wrong" from a constitutional stand point. And it would be a "secular" justification.

It might put the issue up for a public referendum. Whether this is acceptable, or not, I don't know. But, assuming that it is, the voters are well within their rights to vote 'yea' or 'nay' for any reason whatsoever, religious or secular.

Secular would be without reference to God, or religion. Laws should be without such a reference. But the motivations that cause people to favor one law over another can be. At least, that is the way that I see it.

so religious influences are permissible, I think. It is a part of a person's, or even an office-holder's, world-view. And the world-view is how they form their opinions as to how society should be run. But they couldn't pass a law saying that everyone must be a Muslim, for example. At least, not in the United States. Or that everybody must attend Mass every Sunday. Or that everyone must keep kosher.

[Perky]

157. To me Secular connotes the non-religious realm

rather than the anti-religious realm. To extend the analogy, there ia at some point there must be a wall that divides the two.

One would think.

My suspicion is that the general objection to the religious right is their bellifgerant crusade to take over the secular realm as well and in so doing crowd out anyone who disagrees with them.. The resentment by many groups to the fundies is on that basis wholly legitmate.
Now wuite honest;ly, I undertand tha rattionale of the fundies for belieiving as they do. It is based largely on a fear that the secular is encroraching on their realm and that as a reuslt they are becoming less relevant. What they fail to understand it that political posturing and trying to control the debate is antithetical to the call of Christ: To be humble; to be a servant; to love thy brother; to do good works; to be quiet and let your light so shine before men that God be glorified. I for one fail to undertand all their rantings, ans strutttng and striving because they above all people whoujld be cognizant of how things unfold.

Again, I understand the rationale, but the theoolgy and the spirit behind it is perverse to the teachings of CHrist.

But having said that, I thinkthere is no real Iron curtain between the secular and the sacred. I certainly undertand how many who oppose the fundiees would want to pur up a wall, but I think in so doing they shut out legitimat and genuine expressions of faith that are well meaning, peacemaking, justice-driven and it the radical political expression that permeates the Gospels: Which is finde peace with God and find peace with all men. stanbd with those who weap; love justice. Love your neighbor, more than yourself. Make the World a better place and give the Glory to God in all things.


As a liberal evangelical, I recognize that there is a wall beween the secred and secual. I just happen to believe that wall is permeable and that I am reuired to be the same on either side of that wall.

[trotsky]

158. Perhaps you can do me a favor, then.

Give some examples of how our government, the Democratic Party, or even American liberals in general operate from the "anti-religious realm." What about the government, the party, or liberals is hostile toward religion? Who has been prevented from exercising or professing their faith? Since you've got some major concerns here about Christians being persecuted, you must have some pretty eye-popping examples at the ready, eh?

[Perky]

159. Oh for the love og God Trotsky...stop with the strawman

I have never ever said ion any shape or form that I believe in any sense that Christians are being persecuted.

At Best, the closes I have come to that is is saying the I am tired of the attaks on the whole of the faith because of crap spewed by the religious right. My criticsim does not rise anywhere close to the notion of persecution..I just think it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

You have been coming beack to the same pint for over a year now and it is just not supported by an objective review of the fact.

Can't you come up with a sound logical argiment that is not the same faulty strawam? I would be more than happy to enter in to an honest discussion with you when you get past this nonsense argument.

Are there some Christians who pull the Persecution card....sure....but I aint one of them...and for the umpteenth time....Christian are not being persecuted in America. How much clearer can I be?

[trotsky]

160. Alright then, explain your OP.

Subject line: I think it is despicable to silence faith-based expressions of policy and politics.

Who is silencing them? Government, party, individuals?

That a man should have the courage to stand as a Democrat and say "I am a Christian" is laudable.

Courage? Why, when a vast majority of Democrats are self-identified Christians? What kind of courage does that take?

You have been coming beack (sic) to the same pint for over a year now and it is just not supported by an objective review of the fact.

No, Perky, that would be you - returning to your "hooray for the brave Christian standing up against the powerful secularists who want to silence him/her" theme again and again. I can't help it that you bring up the same topic all the time, and that I can have only one response to it. Namely, that it's completely bogus.

Can't you come up with a sound logical argiment (sic) that is not the same faulty strawam? (sic)

That's what I've been waiting for from you, Perky. What exactly IS your argument? Can you state it without creating the strawmen of powerful evil secularists who control the Democratic party and try to squelch all religious sentiment?

Christian (sic) are not being persecuted in America.

That's good to hear you say. Now let's see if you believe it.

[Totallybushed]

161. I tend to agree with

you about the definition of secular. However, there ARE evangelical atheists, who want to spread their 'religion', or ideology, as much as do the most rabid fundies.

Another point is that not all right wing evangelicals are mindless robots, nor do they all have the same motivations. Many are quite mainstream in their behavior and beliefs. They just emphasize different parts of their religion than do the left wing religious. They tend to be more concerned with the hereafter than the present, although they balance it better than the wingnuts.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that conservatives of all stripes, secular (and there are some), as well as religious, will have varied motives, interests, concerns, etc. They can't all be lumped into the"stupid or evil" categories. To defeat them, we must understand them. To convert them, we must address their concerns.

That's all I'm really saying.

[trotsky]

163. These "evangelical atheists" of which you speak...

can you name one? And if you manage to do that, can you compare how that person's actions are a direct analogue to those of a "rabid fundie," like say Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolph?

Thanks!

[Totallybushed]

164. Well, yes, I can

I would say those school administrators that permit various secular groups, and religious groups of other p ersuasions than Christians to meet on school property, but forbid Christian groups to do so. For example. Or those that, and this is minor I admit, want to take all religious references out of Christmas celebrations. These are dangerous people because if we limit Christians freedom of expression, what is to prevent our own from being limited? Not much.

I'm not really worried about Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson. They're entitled to their own opinions, same as anybody else. I never heard of them pulling a "unibomber" stunt, for instance. I'm not really sure what church supported or supports Eric Rudolph. I googled and found nothing. He seems to have some connection to Christian Identity. A group which is repudiated, and considered heretical, by all orthodox denominations, even the conservative ones.

[trotsky]

165. Can you name one of these school administrators?

I'm just wondering if you have an actual court case or news story, or if this administrator in question came right out of a right-wing e-mail. Now Falwell and Robertson are actually actively working to strip women of their reproductive rights, homosexuals of ANY rights, and any body else who isn't like them of whatever rights they don't feel others should have. And you don't worry about them - BUT you're afraid of the unnamed school administrator. Bah.

[Greyhound]

142. "Fundamentalism as we understand it today is a recent invention" Excuse me but

where on earth did you ever get that idea? Heard of the Pilgrims, the crusades, the inquisition, etc.?

The idea that politicians must proclaim their faith and wear it on their sleeve is the recent invention. JFK nearly lost the election because he was a Catholic.

[donco6]

13. Actually, I think it would be remarkable if . . .

someone said, "I am a Christian", and everyone said, "Yeah, we can tell. Your good works precede you."

I'm not holding my breath.

[Leopolds Ghost]

56. "Oftentimes, the foul stench of stupid white man... precedes him." --Dead Man

:hi:

[Totallybushed]

151. What does that mean?

I'm sure you didn't intend it as such, but that seems awfully racist to me?

Pardon my ignorance.

[Perky]

36. I certainly agree (again)

But thier is a huge difference between wrapping oneself in flag and God as the Hypocrites, idoloters and the Pharisees on the right have done for a generation and using the language that Obama used on Saturday.

[Cha]

47. Or an Agnostic who doesn't know

what the hell's goin' on out there in the outta stratosphere except the astronomy and astrology, of course.:)

[smokey nj]

61. I'd like one who has the courage to say "None of your damned business" when questioned

about his/her religious beliefs.

[Leopolds Ghost]

93. I would say that if I were running for office.

Except that I know it would put a bug up their (right wing theocratic) butts to have to argue with what they would consider a radical Christian leftist, so I fear the temptation would be too great.

[JanMichael]

71. Ditto that takes about as much balls as saying he likes baseball.

BFD.

[nxylas]

2. I agree, but expect to get flamed for saying this

Place your bets now on how long it will be before the words "sky pixie" or "flying spaghetti monster" appear in this thread.

[Bluebear]

6. Well, you just said the words, so is the bet over?

:)

[More Than A Feeling]

3. Who is silencing him?

Criticism for his rhetoric is not the same thing as silencing him. From what I have seen, Obama is concentrating on sending out one message in the opening week of his candidacy: do not fuck with me, John Howard, Mainstream Media, and FOX News. I think he can take care of himself.

[Ian David]

4. Shut-up.

I'm kidding.

[BlueJazz]

8. "Every American has the right to believe whatever they want."

It's only when The try to force those beliefs into Laws that most of us Atheists start calling Foul....

[Perky]

37. I agree doctrine has no place in public policy

but there is a wide chasem between public profession of personal faith and imposing the doctrines of one faith on the society under the aegis of government.

[walldude]

44. Yup.. saw a bumper sticker today that said:

Focus On Your Own Damn Family!

[redwitch]

53. I haven't seen that one but I love it!

Indeed! Those people scare me.

[blondeatlast]

84. AMEN!

:rofl:

[Rage for Order]

60. Everyone tries to force their beliefs on everyone

That's how laws are made. As an extreme example, society forced its belief that adults should not have sex with children onto the small minority of people who believe it is perfectly fine to have sex with children (no, I'm not advocating for them, just using it as an example). The majority also said it should be illegal to pay someone less than $7.25 an hour for their labor (still in negotiations, but it'll be made law). Were these beliefs not forced onto everyone who disagreed with them?

[sandnsea]

9. Values, yes; doctrine, no

When scripture replaces our laws and Constitution, we've got a problem. I haven't heard Obama do that yet, hope he maintains the right balance.

[MindPilot]

10. Would a candidate who answered the "faith" question with "none"

have even the slightest chance of winning?

That's why I have a problem with it.

[niyad]

12. apart from the fact that this is NOT a theocracy, where have you seen any actual

evidence of what you state? christians are not being persecuted in this country, just witness the power of the evangelical christian right--remember the "faith-based initiatives" crap?

please stop trying to pretend that "we find his christianity woefully deficient" is the same as saying that we don't want religion in our politics.

"the last time politics and religion were combined, people got burned at the stake"

"if you want a theocratic state, move to iran"

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[niyad]

30. "you sure like to make your voices heard here" care to explain?

[trotsky]

64. KCDM the 3rd despises atheists and atheism.

Enough explanation for you?

[Bluebear]

31. Eh?

[JanMichael]

73. Pardon?

5%?

I thought it was 14% in this dumbassed Xian backward thinking fuckfaced country?

[Perky]

137. where did I say that?

[Jacobin]

16. right about now in our history

we need desperately to separate church and state and any would be statesman who wants my support, should damn well realize that.

[Deep13]

17. I'd feel a little more comforatble if his religion wasn't so public.

I really did not need to know that his god is an awesome god any more than I need to hear that there is no god but Allah.

As a factual matter, I do not agree with your basic premise. I'm willing to accept a Christian president or senator because that is what this country will produce. I also accept that a politician will act like a politician. To suppose he is not using his religious background to further his career, even if he genuinely believes in it, is pretty naive. I hope that is the case. I hate to think he would make public policy based on his own mythological understanding rather than objective evidence. The fact that he is compassionate speaks to his own character and is irrelevant to whether or not he is religious.

Religion and nonreligion are not mirror images of each other. One depends on subjective belief or feeling which may or may not agree with reality. The other depends solely on perceived fact. (One may get the facts wrong, of course, but objective reality through obsevation remains the goal.) Consequently, your statement that atheist ideas and religious ones are of equal weight is not supported by either fact or an examination of history. To a large degree, the improvement of the human condition walks hand in hand with the increasing irrelevancy of religion. We American atheists often come from religious backgrounds and have liberated ourselves from it. We have reason to be suspicious of it and will thank you not to denigrate our views on the subject.

[Perky]

35. I do not thnk I did dinigrate the athiest position

I completely affirm your right to believe as you do. I do so with out any sense of moral superiority. Because I am quite sure that on the basis of morality, I am no better than anyone else. I would however remind you tghat one must also recognize that while the Crusades, the inquisitiion, slavery and coloniasm were all carried out under the flag of God. Abolition, the civill right movement, the great work of the mennonites during disaters and Habitat for Humanity find their moral center and their Genesis in the claims of Christ.

I simply asking that athiests not assume they have the moral right to denigrate people of faith while demanding that their rights be protected above all others.

[Deep13]

140. Oh, you don't need to worry.

Most people in this country think atheists are morally equivilent to Stalinists, terrorists and child molesters. Hardly anyone is defending our rights while city councils all over the country continue to open sessions with a prayer, post religious holiday scenes on public land, demand school children affirm their allegence to God and give tax breaks to churches.

I absolutely respect everyone's right to be religious. I would be lying, however, if I said I respected the religion itself. I don't repect anything that is fundamentally based on a rejection of rationality.

The fact that Jimmy Carter and MLK were Christians does not demonstrate that either the civil rights movement or Habitat for Humanity began as religious movements. My view is that in the case of abolitionists and the civil rights movement, the churches were simply preexisting organizations that could be used to spread the word.

[Leopolds Ghost]

55. Why shouldn't his religion be public?

Most people who are non-religious should be congratulated for being public in expressing their beliefs. The same should hold for those of us who are religious.

Why should I care that you intend to penalize me (with a wet noodle, apparently) because you disagree with the source of my values, even if they are eye-to-eye or to the left of yours?

Are decent people likely to be decent whether or not they are religious?

Sure, but CS Lewis claimed the same notion to be central dogma, and he was a (rather extremely) pious Anglican. To me, CS Lewis is wrong in a crucial respect -- religion should be a school of thought, like philosophy or political science. Not an ideology from which you can only backslide or switch sides from. There are plenty of people from all faiths who have decent values, and there are plenty of other people (a majority, in fact) who are assholes. That will remain true even if they were all atheists, because genetically speaking, human society is full of assholes at every stage and in every organization. It's something that kicks in with all of us when you put someone in a position of influence over a person they don't care about. and I'd assert that religious beliefs have been crucial in the development of liberal thinking.

[Deep13]

138. That is not the purpose of the presidency.

Whatever the views of the individual, we have a secular government and Constitution. What part of "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" includes "Our God is an awesome god?"

Atheists don't have beliefs. That's why we are atheists.

At best religion is irrelevant to whether or not someone is a good person. At worst it is a justification for the worst human autrocities in history. Unfortunately, religion in large measure has claimed virtue as its own. This assertion disproves itself. If there is no god, then virtue is left to the individual. If God is the source of virtue, then a single evil believer means that God was asleep at the switch, an impossibility in most religions.

SOME liberals have found religious inspiration for their liberalism and their contributions to human progress should not be discounted for that reason. Still, by and large religion is very conservative by nature because it encourages people not to question authority, but to rely on faith. The Epistle to the Romans spells that out.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. What a lovely strawman you've constructed.

It would seem that what you're really trying to do is silence those who are sick of the excessive religious-ification of our politics in recent years.

They deserve a voice, too.

[Perky]

38. Everybody deserves a voice

regardless of creed or color. ANd no group should try to silence those who oppose them... that is what pluralism is all about.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. I agree. And while I didn't appreciate Obama's potshot at atheists regarding the Pledge

when he was previously "courting" Evangelicals .... Something to the effect of, "it is doubtful any child feels discriminated against or oppressed from having to say Under God in the Pledge" (eh, you've got one right here, buddy) and I suspect that speech is the source of some of the resentment you detect...

I actually do like the things he's been saying this past week or so.

[Leopolds Ghost]

59. Well, I'm a Christian and I'm offended by "Under God", it is blasphemous.

As the Founding Fathers themselves (hardly devout, but certainly skeptical of religious claims made by the government) would have agreed.

It implies "God is on our side" which implies that they believe in a Babylonian type God, who is busy fighting Allah and Buddha on some heavenly ceremonial court, and rooting for the Saints in the NFC.

Of course, they DO believe in a Babylonian type God, either Ba'al or Mammon, I'm not sure which.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. And whether or not it's "blasphemous", it doesn't belong in the pledge.

Simple as that.

[Leopolds Ghost]

76. You have to state reasons why it doesn't belong in the pledge, though.

I for one think Pledges of Allegiance are creepy, so I don't care one way or another. Given that, I think my reason is more convincing than yours, because my reason is directed towards people who are likely to need convincing -- liberal Christians like Obama and otherwise left-wing Evangelicals (there are more than a few) who "can't stand those secularists trying to move Under God from the pledge, that's just wrong."

[Zhade]

101. It endorses a deity. It's a violation of the first amendment.

This isn't rocket surgery here.

[Leopolds Ghost]

105. The plan to give DC one (meaningless) vote in the House

is unconstitutional too, because it deprives them of additional
representation which they would get as a State. But that ain't
stopping proponents of the plan, because the constitutionality
argument in and of itself is a bloodless one.

The government is doing lots of things that are unconstitutional
and I'd propose that we keep the "it's unconstitutional" argument
in reserve for when needed.

Everyone knows the "under god" pledge is unconstitutional, hell,
the whole damn thing is probably unconstitutional (loyalty oaths).
The emotional argument is what counts.

[Zhade]

109. I think I'll make whatever arguments I choose to, thanks.

I don't debate issues based on a pre-approved list from you, dig?

[Leopolds Ghost]

114. You're the one who "rebutted" my argument in defense of the same position

"It's unconstitutional, period."


"I support flowers and trees because they are pretty to look at"

"No, flowers and trees are valuable because they recycle CO2. Get the facts!"


If I say that an emotional argument against the Under God pledge is worthwhile for us religious (or mildly religious) types who otherwise might consider removing it distasteful, why contradict me? Why not let me see where it goes.

[Warren DeMontague]

112. Substitute "Under Buddha" or "Under Zeus" or "Under Pan" or "Under Satan"

and it's clear why it's unconstitutional.

[Leopolds Ghost]

115. Not really.

Maybe I'm just strange that way, but for those people who are moderate in their religious beliefs, I don't have a problem waving around money that says "in Buddha we trust". If the US Gov't wants to profess a belief in Buddha on its money because it's unconstitutional yet convenient to do so, just like it's unconstitutional yet convenient for them to spy on us, then I say, render unto Buddha what is Buddha's. As for Satan, we all know that money is the root of all evil. :evilfrown: I don't like the Pledge anyway. Neither did a lot of politically-minded people when it was first proposed.

[Warren DeMontague]

116. We're not talking about money. We're talking about something that kids are essentially coerced to

recite in public schools. Big difference.

[Leopolds Ghost]

118. I'd be willing to bet that I could get a room full of high school kids to recite

"One Nation Under Zeus" for 12 years on a daily basis without a second thought.

After all, it's a pledge of allegiance to the FLAG, so it's really about worshipping the FLAG (or Bush) as a god. If Bush thinks he is the son of Zeus, who am I to object?

[Warren DeMontague]

121. It was not part of the pledge originally. It doesn't belong there. Whether or not you could "get" HS

students to pledge "under Zeus" isn't the point- the point is, millions of public school students in this country undergo various degrees of coercion to stand and pledge "under" a deity they may not believe in.

Maybe that's high school students in progressive areas where it doesn't matter if they don't want to pledge, or maybe that's the only Atheist, Buddhist, or Hindu kid in a first grade class somewhere in podunk red state-ville. If you can't grasp why that's a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause, I can't explain it any further to you.

[Leopolds Ghost]

124. The pledge itself doesn't belong there.

Flag-worship is unconstitutional, period. :hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

125. You'll get no argument from me, there.

Honestly, I think this nation would be better served if we took that time every day to teach kids about the Constitution.

[Zhade]

100. Please show where anyone is being silenced.

People not bowing to your beliefs is hardly silencing anyone.

[RiverStone]

20. I have mixed feelings about this...

I really like Obama, and from the list of "declared candidates" he is my top choice (though I'm still hoping for Gore and/or Clark to jump in).

That being said, I respect Obama's right to practice what ever faith he choses. I also respect his right to claim that faith as a guiding force for him personally and he strikes me as genuine in that regard.

My concern is that as well intended as he is, is it possible that somewhere along the way --- it would effect his perspective while excluding other views? Shrub does that to the extreme of course, and my ideal would be a candidate that approaches the Presidency in a totally secular way (and keeps his/her faith totally out of it). Again, thats an ideal - though probably not realistic in today's world. I have no evidence at all that Obama has interjected his religion into policy as a Senator; though I'd be concerned if it did happen.

I want a government by the people and for the people - could Obama's Christain declaration affect his perception of how to govern? I guess I'm not sure. Would folks of a Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Pagan, Atheist, or (anything not Christain) view care one way or the other? Time will tell. Its all in the walk - and if Obama truly honors the live and let live approach - I could vote for him easily.

[charlie]

21. Courage?

That's rich. Still playing your martyr fantasies, Perky? Nobody was or is going to be silenced. He spoke and caught flak, will continue to speak and catch flak, and plaudits. As you so often like to remind us, this is America, that's the way it works here.

[MonkeyFunk]

22. Why are people so quick

to equate criticism with "silencing" them?

I've never heard anybody say people don't have a right to express their ideas. But it seems many think their right to say something means they have a right to say it without anybody disagreeing.

[Bake]

23. And those who criticize him for it can and should expect to get some flak for that, too

That's the way free speech works. And in a democracy, if you support a candidate, speak/work/vote for that candidate. If you don't, then don't. But Perky has just as much right to state an opinion as anyone else.

I'm going out for popcorn now ...

:popcorn:

Bake

[MonkeyFunk]

24. Of course he does!

But how is disagreeing with him "silencing" him?

He's not the only person I've seen make this claim - many seem to believe that any disagreement is the equivalent of telling them to shut up.

[Bake]

25. You're right, of course: "silencing" is too strong a term.

A candidate who stakes out a position - and they SHOULD DO SO!! - should expect dialogue and/or criticism. That's what we do in America. Just like HRC should expect criticism of her IRW vote (but that's another story ...).

There IS some hostility to religious faith in certain quarters of DU. That's OK, as long as we all remember that ultimately we're on the same side of the aisle.

Bake

[Perky]

43. Please read though the posts in the threads I posted in the OP

[trotsky]

65. Some Christians need to validate their faith by feeling persecuted.

And if the persecution isn't really there, they'll invent some.

[LanternWaste]

166. I'd say that goes for just about any faith (or lack thereof).

I'd say that goes for just about any faith (or lack thereof). More specifically, I'd say it's the individual, not the group who needs the persecution complex and will use religion, politics, money, or anything we can hook our neurosis onto.

[jollyreaper2112]

27. A compromise

Tell you what. I'll be willing to settle for religious input on secular matters of debate so long as religionists are willing to settle for secular input on their theological doctrine. I'll be more than happy to accept the premise that a man sticking his penis in another man angers God if you'll allow me to laugh in your face when you tell me that some man in a silly dress chanting a spell over bread and wine magically transubstantiates the elements into the blood and body of Christ.

You wouldn't like that, would you? Didn't think so. Are you free to dislike homosexuality? Absolutely! Don't want an abortion? Don't have one! Think there's too much sex and violence on TV? Don't watch it! Don't want gays marrying in your church? That's cool! They can find a denomination that accepts them and enjoy the full legal benefits of partnership. There's no skin off your nose on that. But the moment you stick your mythologically tained nose into a debate that affects all Americans, regardless of their religion, now we have a problem.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm just intolerant, but every time someone tries to explain the problems in the Middle East as stemming from a sibling rivalry between Jews and Arabs as told in the Bible, I want to strangle a priest for spreading such garbage. Every time a debate on evolution gets interrupted by advocates of the tribal superstition school of intelligent design, I want to break bones. Every time the quesiton of stem cell research is devolves into guessing what a bunch of goat herding Israelites would have thought about the issue, I want to see blood.

Bumper sticker philosophy can sometimes be overly simplistic but I think this one says it all: don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church.

[Jonathan50]

28. Quoth Jesus the Christ:

Matthew 6:6
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

[Cerridwen]

29. Please, pray tell, where is the location of silenced people

of which you speak? I'd like to go there.

Because ever since 'saint ronnie' started this most recent 'religious revivalist movement' I've been subjected to being accused of 'practicing witchcraft and murdering my children' because I'm a feminist; I've been accused of being a 'traitor' because I'm not a 'christian warrior'; I've been accused of 'making war on christmas'; I've been subjected to draconian laws based on some 'christian's' perverted view of scripture; and told that somehow I'm not 'normal' because I don't fit some narrow, 'biblical' description of this, that or another thing; and it's all been done in the name of 'god' and 'religion'.

So, please, do tell - where is this place where these people are silenced. I could use the peace and quiet.

[Greyhound]

145. The old technique of accusing your opponent of doing what you, in fact, are doing.

Non-Christians have been silenced throughout our history and in previous times, like today, when they objected to it, they were ostracized and otherwise intimidated until they learned to shut the hell up.

[Zhade]

32. "profoundly bigoted" - AGAIN with your nonsense persecution complex!

Here's the deal: someone's religious faith is not an acceptable rationale for supporting legislation. If the legislation has no reason to exist except because it springs from someone's religious beliefs, it is likely unconstitutional in nature.

Someone like Carter or Obama can find plenty of nonreligious reasons to advocate for the kinds of policies they support. But, say, a repub voting to defund science based on his crackhead stupid belief that the Earth is 10,000 years old is violating the spirit of the first amendment, if not also the letter of the law.

Further, it takes ZERO courage in this majority-Christian nation to state that one is a Christian. Try telling a crowd you lack belief in gods - THAT'S courageous.

[Perky]

42. I agree

but there is a real honest to goodness difference between saying you believe in God, the head of America's civil religion and invoking Christ as a personal prefession of faith.
I chose the word courage carefully It is political courage in that he is begging to take on Falwell and Dobson and their ilk..which I think is great...and I look forward to that debate

And I think it courageous in a largely secularized party to say I am a Christian, judge me by by words and deeds.

[gollygee]

48. Is the Democratic party "largely secularized"?

The vast majority of people I know, both Republicans and Democrats, are religious. Is that not typical?

[Perky]

50. I think it is largely secularized because

the repukes have pushed those who dare to dissent from their midst and in oreder to embrace those regugees and the big tent we have chosen to largely ignore faith drivers in our politics. That is not to say we are not a religious group, simply that it does not bleed very much into ot political existence.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

79. Umm...Seperation of Church & State? Does that mean anything to you?

[Perky]

135. It means everything to me.

this sub-thread is really about whether or not faith ought to inform our politics. That is vastly different than dogma-driven policy by the government.

I disagree with about 80% of the political content of the religios right and about 100% of their henchman in elected office. But that doesn't mean that their voice should not be heard in a pluralistic democracy. They have as much right as anyone else to voice their opinions.

ANt to be specific....political parties are not the same thing as government.

[Zhade]

54. Your imaginary courage to declare yourself part of the majority goes with your imagined persecution.

It's ALL in your head.

[Leopolds Ghost]

62. Unfortunately there aren't many non-religious justifications out there for social justice.

Most of the secular, culturally liberal upper middle class people in my community vote their pocketbooks on every issue. And they are the people with the "Peace In Iraq" signs and rainbow flags all over the place. They are the same people who basically exclude the poor from their community.

Nobody in the "progressive" community is out there developing objective arguments for social justice to replace the original, religious ones. No, they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater -- and becoming secular neoliberals.

The same goes for tolerance and free speech. America, including the progressive left and secular vs. religious, is becoming more and more intolerant and less tolerant of free speech every day. Hypocritical notions of privacy that only apply to "full citizens" -- homeowners -- being protected from "idea pollution" where their children should not have to be subjected in public or in the mall or in view of their house, to speech they find objectionable, while poor immigrants and anti-war activists have their homes searched and are arrested for sleeping in their kitchen. Where secular leftist organizations promote the idea of safe spaces where "intolerant speech is not allowed".

Arguments for tolerance and altruism (liberality) are ultimately either religious or philosophical in nature, which is to say, not remunerative to you personally and therefore not "objectively desirable". Attempts to justify liberal thinking by resorting to utilitarian reasoning will always fail. Utilitarianism leads to the Panopticon, as we are seeing today.

[Zhade]

103. Fucking BULLSHIT.

I'm an atheist, and I'm MORE giving, MORE charitable, MORE tolerant and MORE honest than a lot of believers.

I don't need religion for altruism - religion got in the WAY.

Your bigoted remarks are tired.

[Leopolds Ghost]

107. "How dare you, I am FILLED with the Holy Spirit!" (throws bible at brother)

:evilfrown:

Seriously, I am simply pointing out that while there are non-religious (philosophical) justifications for liberalism and altruism and tolerance and all that stuff, arguments that have been with us for centuries,

it is also true that there are religious justifications for the same things which are more widely known and accepted, whether you agree that those arguments are more or less central to the issue, simply because more people are religious.

and outside of pop psychology (patriotism, jingoism, xenophobia, fear of bomb-throwing hairy immigrants and little green men),

religion is often the only philosophical framework most people are familiar with, and therefore it is the one most commonly used in justifying their actions, especially when their actions are not immediately justified by practicality (either because they are altruistic or because they are evil).

Saying that they should not express a religious justification for their political beliefs, when their actions themselves do not impinge on people of other opinion on religion, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There is or was a huge social justice movement in this country among Christians and that has been torn apart after the New Left and the Old Left mutually shunned each other in the 1970s over religious, cultural and pocketbook issues.

[Zhade]

111. WTF is with the subject line?

You've already had comments deleted. Your backpedaling doesn't convince me.

[Leopolds Ghost]

123. A reference to a fundie who was filmed throwing a bible

at her brother after being accused of being insufficiently religious.

I'm probably being pretty arrogant, sorry.

My original point is simply that there are many religious justifications for liberal beliefs which predate modern leftism, and people who believe in them, especially if that is their primary philosophical background, shouldn't be made to feel like they are somehow old-fashioned. If forced to choose between liberal/left ideas on the basis of "rationality alone" and their culture, they will feel compelled to abandon liberal/left ideas every time.

[Zhade]

170. Well, religion IS old-fashioned.

Can't help that fact.

[Dastard Stepchild]

104. Some forms of social work...

particularly the work of structuralist social workers, would be one example of a non-secular movement for social justice.

[Pale Blue Dot]

33. I think it is despicable to silence unicorn-based expressions of policy and politics.

People that believe in fairies should have equal footing too.

[Clintonista2]

69. Whos silencing Unicorn based politics?

If someone actually wanted to run a campaign attributing everything they have to Unicorns, are you suggesting anyone would stop them?

[Leopolds Ghost]

97. I would, because Unicorns are demonic. There's a reason God instructed Noah to kill them all

Just kidding.

[Leopolds Ghost]

72. Perhaps you haven't noticed the huge numbers of peace-flag and rainbow-flag waving folks

Who believe in homeopathics and feng shui.

Now watch when someone accuses me of denigrating the people I just mentioned. Wha? Did I say anything?

No one can get away with denigrating alternative medicine in left-liberal circles; the same should hold true for religious beliefs.

The most highly unlikely religious beliefs are folk mythologies like Hinduism, where the entire religion is based on fabulous tales about personal gods who have fatuous personalities and rape their own sisters.

Which is why most enlightened people who are Hindus adopted a version of religious belief more akin to Buddhism, panpsychism or syncretic monotheism -- more of a philosophical religion -- milennia ago. I don't think it's insulting to Hinduism to say this.

But it does violate a sacred cow on DU to denigrate any religion other than Christianity or Islam (Islam counts, because when you get right down to it, they are the brown-skinned enemy of the moment, and try as hard as we might, any character flaw, be it a resentment of highly religious people or a seething anger towards misogynistic tribesmen, on our own part, or be it our neighbor's actual misogyny and devout religious jingoism, will be used by our propagandists as a tool to encourage acceptance of the next war.)

[Pale Blue Dot]

74. No, I'd denigrate all of them.

None of them have anything to do with science, or facts, or anything remotely provable.

[Leopolds Ghost]

78. One thing we've learned from Postmodernism is that you believe what you choose

to believe.

Science, facts, evidence -- you find certain science and certain facts "supportable". Just look at the debates over "evidence we are going to war with Iran" or culpability in the Fitzgerald investigation.

Schrodiger's cat hypothesis pretty much put an end to the notion of logical positivism which you seem to be suggesting.

Given that, it is easier to talk about probability. What is the probability that God exists? Fair to middling. What is the probability that Hindu Gods exist? Improbable, given their description.

What is the probability that homeopathics work? Highly improbable, though not unprovable, because observations of reality provide particular disproof of the concept of homeopathics upon every observation.

And yet secular postmodern liberals continue to patronize criminal enterprises (food co-ops) that market homeopathics. I have no objection, I even support these food co-ops with my hard-earned dollars because the only people who want to criminalize false advertising claims of this sort are companies like Monsanto (who are suing Ben and Jerry's for the unscientific claim that non-GMO food is superior.)

[spoony]

117. You make very interesting points

So I imagine they'll be largely ignored ;)

[muriel_volestrangler]

169. "What is the probability that God exists? Fair to middling"?

:rofl:

Oh please, stop pretending you can put a probability on 'God' existing. That's pseudo-mathematical claptrap. No-one can even settle on a definition of 'God', let alone come up with numbers that have anything to do with an existence.

[muriel_volestrangler]

168. Plenty of us denigrate 'alternative medicine' whenever we get the chance

Step over to the Skepticism, Science and Psueodscience Group any time you want. Or ask those who believe in it on the Astrology, Spirituality & Alternative Healing Group how much flak they've taken for expressing their beliefs here on DU outside that group.

Homeopathy, feng shui, and astrology, are all openly laughed at, and heavily criticised. Religion gets an easy time by comparison. If we held religions to the same standards we apply to astrology, the air would be blue with accusations of religious hatred.

[Garbo 2004]

128. !!!

:spray:

[Ino]

34. It seems politicians MUST declare themselves for Jesus

or they will be viewed as "godless" and therefore lacking in morals, virtues, compassion, etc. This is what I object to. And as you pointed out, invoking God's name is no guarantee they will exercise those so-called Christian Values. So why are so many compelled to do it? To pander to the myth that (only) Christians are good, honest, worthy & take their place in that club -- or using a national platform to give their testimony, praise Jesus, whatever. Both are objectionable to me.

This is the first time I've heard the expression "faith-based politics"! It implies a theocracy. It's exclusionary. What's the opposite of that, pray tell -- "godless politics"?

I'm sure it's OK with you...as long as the faith is yours.

[Perky]

40. ok there were about four ad Hominen argruments you provided

I am completely supportive of pluralism and everyone's right to believe the way they do even when I completely disagree. What I find shameful is when those who disagree with mo e or Obama or Lieberman or the Muslim COngressman from the Twin Cities think that we should shpould not invoke deity in presnting ourselves for public service.


I understand that the distiction may be lost on many, but their is a real difference between a politican who cloaks himself in God and Country in order to pander to american civi religion or the the right wing AND those who express a personal faith in Jesus as a source od solace and strength in wanting to serve all the people.

Obama's statement was not benign genuflection. It was personal expression of faith that bears out in his service but not in policies.

[Ino]

81. Oh?

"...bears out in his service but not in policies"? Are you sure?

"It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase `under God,'" he (Obama) said.

He says "it is doubtful" (fact) rather than "I doubt" (opinion). How the hell does he know how non-Christian children feel? How would he feel if the pledge said, "under Ra"? or if the phrase was just left out?

Sen. Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats on Wednesday for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people," and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoing Americans.

Now how should the party compete for the support of the churchgoing? By talking about one's faith maybe, starting a speech with some reference to god? I've no doubt that Obama's faith is genuine, and I do hope that means he's a decent fair person (although I guess I'm supposed to ASSUME it does) -- because so far this issue is the ONLY thing I dislike about him.

I'm not faulting him for it though. When all are loudly proclaiming their allegiance to god for whatever reason, it's hard to follow the bible's strictures and still win the support of the churchies!

When thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

[Leopolds Ghost]

80. I am a Christian. Why should I assume Obama's values are my own?

Obama should state quite clearly when and how his religious beliefs inform his political platform. This will simultaneously tell us where he is coming from, allow people like me who are also Christian to stipulate when and where we THINK he is off-base, and comfort non-Christians that we ae not being led by some secret Christian agenda

(since religious people rely on their cultural beliefs and yet disagree about politics just like atheists, or women, or gay people, or Eskimo-Americans do -- even if their cultural institutions declare that their heritage as a group should compel them to take a particular side of an issue -- Kerry stated quite clearly when and how he agreed with the Catholic Church on an issue, and when he felt motivated by personal beliefs but did not agree with the Church.)

Of course Obama will not do that because it will prevent him from waffling to satisfy powerful Democratic constituents and fundraisers, down the line.

Stating that he has a religious objection to kicking people off welfare, for instance, would be a bold move. One that MLK would have made.

[Radical Activist]

39. When I heard Obama say "God" I knew some on DU

would ignore all the great progressive things in his speech and attack him for that one line by claiming he sold out to Christians. Its a pretty narrow-minded way to view him. The Democratic Party became liberal thanks to the Christian social gospel of people like William Jennings Bryan.
People need to recognize the difference between appealing to voters and pandering to them. Obama shows no sign of compromising his beliefs in an attempt to pander. If he can appeal to Christian voters by talking about liberal ideals in different ways, then all liberals are better off.

[Bluebear]

51. Who attacked him here?

[WritingIsMyReligion]

46. We don't give a rat's ass what religion or non-religion anybody is.

But when the only reason for passing legislation is because it jibes well with The Man Upstairs, well, that's shitty logic. (I would say it is no logic at all, even.)

Nobody's out to get Christians. That's something that Jerry Falwell and his despicable, hypocritical ilk say. They have an 80 to 85% majority in America.

[walldude]

49. I read the posts ant the link you provided and couldn't

find one post "rejecting" Obama because of his faith. I could care less about anyone's faith as long as they keep it out of my business and my bedroom.= If polls are to be believed then 85% of Americans are Christian, what exactly is laudable about someone claiming they are with the majority? What would be laudable would be someone who can put their religious beliefs aside and make decisions for all people.

[sendero]

57. I think it's despicable..

... when mainstream Christians refuse to speak out against the false Christians of our time like Falwell, Robertson, etc.

By allowing these folks to occupy their temple, they are basically condoning their hateful decidedly non-Christian messages and allowing them to desecrate the words of Jesus.

But I'm not holding my breath, this sort of stuff has been going on for 30 years and the outcry against it is ... nonexistent.

[Perky]

58. That is the debate that Obama is setting up

I think he is telling Falwell to bring it on!

[sendero]

63. I am definitely..

.... warming up to Obama. His response to the likes of Howard for instance, is EXACTLY what Dems need to be saying. It's time to give the Rethugs a taste of their own medicine, and stop letting them frame the debate.

So far, he is one of a small handful who seem to be up to the task.

[LanternWaste]

167. we don't have microphones in front of us

I think a lot of mainstream Christians *are* speaking out against the extremest American Clerics, but we don't have microphones in front of us.

If you look for it, you'll see it-- you'll read stories about mainstream churches condeming the war, condeming U.S. policies dealing with health care and poverty. You'll hear Christian criticizing the televangelists and their message of greed over humility and nation over neighbor.

But you'll have to look for it because we're not the loud ones, the rich ones or the beautiful ones so we're not going to be on the 6pm news roundup.

[Madspirit]

66. He loses me.

...and reading some of the other posts, yeah, I would like to see a gay atheist. ...or a straight atheist or...

Every frakking president we've had has pandered to the CHRISTIAN religion. See where it's gotten us.
Lee

[mondo joe]

68. I think it is despicable to ban public displays of masturbation.

Actually, I don't.

I don't see the need for such private things to be so public.

[Solon]

77. As a Religious Non-Christian, while reading this thread...

I would have to say that the Christians among you really take the cake in arrogance. Seriously, so far one hopes Atheists remain a small minority, I assume by ANY means necessary, and another accuses Atheists as being unable to support social justice because its based on religion!

Talk about arrogance!

To be frank, I doubt YOU Christians out there will find many friends with the attitude you display.

And to you Atheists, while I'm on the subject, STOP BEING SO DAMNED REASONABLE! Don't say that the beliefs of these Christians are fairy tales and stuff like that, instead talk about how THEY personally, cannot be moral people unless they abandon religion, or some other bullshit like that.

[Leopolds Ghost]

82. Postmodernism -- belief in fairy tales

If it's reasonable to believe my religion is a fairy tale, it's reasonable to believe their argument holds for your religion, which makes sense because a lot of postmodern religious and political beliefs are quite casual in this day and age. So unless your non-Christian belief system is quite casual and postmodern in nature ("who can really say...") I wouldn't call it reasonable to say you agree with calling someone else's religion a superstition but not your own.

Of course, I'm the person who just said Hinduism was highly unlikely, but then again, Hinduism produced the fertile intellectual climate that gave us Buddhism, Jainism, pacifism, vegetarianism, etc.

[Solon]

89. Unlike you, I can actually get along with differing religions along with non-believers...

I DON'T CARE if they believe that I believe in fairy tales, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, that neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.

I don't really give a damn what you believe in my religion either, to be honest, you like to hear yourself talk, and that's about it, as long as keep your religious laws out of my life, I'll feel a lot better about it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

91. I don't know what your religious beliefs are.

You obviously don't care to share that information with me.

I DO know that it's illogical to basically say that an atheist colleague of yours is correct and reasonable to call someone's beliefs a fairy tale if their argument applies to you as well -- and not by extension or implication -- directly.

And no, I don't like to hear myself type, but I am not good at short-form writing so my messages tend to be long.

If you lived in the 18th century people would probably call you diffident or something because your messages were too short. Back then it was not a crime, or egotistical, to post long discourses. But times and customs change. You get the idea.

[Solon]

94. The idea of faith is that it can't be proven...

It is perfectly reasonable for some people to come to a different conclusion about one religion or all religions based on their own personal experiences. As I said, this doesn't hurt me, what does is when the majority religion wishes to impose unreasonable religious rules or support of that religion on any minority that doesn't share those beliefs. This includes through taxes and other, more subtle forms of support, such as through public school.

[Leopolds Ghost]

102. OK.

You were expecting me to disagree? HA! Your mother smelt of elderberries! ;-)

[Bluebear]

83. It took four minutes for someone to pipe up that someone would say "fairy tale"

or spaghetti monster. I don't believe that has happened here. Whatever gets you through the night, enjoy, as far as I am concerned. However i do NOT want the President making faith-based policy decisions PERIOD. The OP might think it is despicable, but I just do not want someone who is running the country to be consulting their personal higher power of choice to make policy decisions.

[Solon]

86. I think my sarcasm just went straight over your head...

A recap of my post, I accused Christians on this thread of arrogance, and then turn around, to be "fair" and accused the Atheists of being too reasonable.

[Bluebear]

90. Not in the least.

It IS arrogance for the majority to complain further that they are being stifled. And I mentioned that 4 minutes after the original post someone squawked that their religion is being made fun of here and it is nothing of the sort.

[Solon]

96. I've said this in the past, and I'll say it now...

Any Christian that complains about how their religion or voices are being oppressed, by either the Democratic party or the Government is so thin skinned that its damned near transparent. They really have no clue what its like to be in situations where, just so you can be physically SAFE, you have to hide what you believe or not believe, in your case. This is what drives me nuts, I wouldn't really care about Obama's "declaration of faith" so much if these thin skinned Christians would stop bitching about being the majority. They pretty much run the show as is, what the fuck do they have to complain about?

[Leopolds Ghost]

99. There are three issues here:

1) Moderate Christians who don't understand how persecuted people of other faiths, or no faith are in other parts of their own community.

2) Liberal or left Christians like me (the latter are usually described as "populist") who are frustrated when atheists condemn all expressions of religion in the public sphere because it prevents us from speaking out in public against fundamentalist theocracy, which has acquired a monopoly on religious speech in the public sphere.

(And don't assume they did so for any exceptional reasons beyond those used by conservatives to acquire a monopoly on political speech in the radio sphere -- indeed, they had to do a fair bit of killin' or the threat of killing in order to purge us "heretical liberals" from the ranks of past religious movements that were in danger of getting too successful; see MLK, Archbishop Romero, etc. I don't think anyone had to be assassinated in the political sphere, except maybe RFK and Wellstone, for the Republicans to sieze enough power to make all of America look just as bad to outsiders as they've made religion.)

3) Conservative Christians who deliberately seek out persecution because they want a powerful enemy to fight against, in order to prove that their oppressor really is the Antichrist, and not that nice gentleman in the office who convinced them they didn't deserve a pay raise or an extension on their lease, and told them to suck it up and get with the program, and being Calvinists who believe that they are destined to either succeed or fail financially based on their own personal morality, and there is nothing they can do about it, they did.

[spoony]

119. Even if that consultation means

a wise and compassionate policy tending to the needs of the poor, the workers, the sick, etc?

People will either accept Obama with his faith and its impact on his life, or they won't, but you can't split him into pieces as if he can compartmentalize his brain and only use the secular bits to decide things with.

[Bluebear]

127. You say that as though his morals are only guided by his God,

If his policies benefit the poor, the workers, the sick, is it necessary to say "and I make these policy proposals because Jesus is my personal Savior"? Or just to make the proposal that will benefit all of the land?

[spoony]

148. Isn't that more for him to say

than you? And from what he's said so far, I'm thinking that yes his faith has a lot to do with it. What's so bad about that?

[Leopolds Ghost]

88. I should clarify when I said there aren't many secular justifications for social justice

I was speaking of social justice as it was understood by Jewish and Christian radicals for thousands of years, that served as great sources of inspiration for Enlightenment philosophers who created modern-day liberalism, not the watered down, utilitarian notions of social justice which have prevailed since MLK was shot and his white supporters learned to shut up about the assassination of "dangerous" men of the people such as MLK, Romero, etc.

The reality is that leftists who assert that an atheist society will be more tolerant one are sadly mistaken. It would be interesting to compare which philosophical or religious tendencies are more prone to liberal thought... I would think Buddhists might have an edge. Jews and Christians are certainly up there, however.

Atheist societies, or highly secular ones such as modern-day Europe (not speaking of official belief, just what the people believe) tend to reflect the pure and unadulterated popular psychology unfiltered through the moderating (or inflaming) influence of an overriding set of cultural values except for the civil religion, capitalism.

Humans will always believe in little green men, for example. They used to be called leprechauns, now they are called aliens -- or government agents out to get them. Similarly, sociologists have proven that humans have always, always condemned recent immigrants as (a) dirty and (b) have large families, regardless if they were Irish, Jewish, German, Arab, white or Hispanic. It is pop psychology that creates the urge to demonize the Other. Atheism will not change that, but it does remove an important cultural/ideological framework that originally underpinned traditional American liberalism, without replacing it with a different cultural/ideological framework that does the same.

[Solon]

92. You aren't seriously arguing that Humanism wasn't the driving force of the Enlightenment, are you?

Also, you seem to confuse "atheism" with "secular", you can have a secular society that isn't strictly structured based on any religion, but still is CULTURALLY religious in the population. The United States is a classic example of this, a society and government that is structured under the assumption that it was NOT divinely ordained to rule, but instead is ruled by the people themselves. While this wasn't totally radical, at least at the time, it was the first time a country was FOUNDED on this notion alone.

And yet, look at the results, religions flourish here, some have even been FOUNDED here, and, over time, they have all influenced the nation in various ways. This is why so many people take a dim view of those who wish to disrupt how this country governs its religious affairs.

Part of the reason why Europe is so secular is because, with the exception of only a few nations, Christianity of one form or another are "official" religions, embodied in monarchs or republics, it doesn't matter. It's usually mentioned in any written constitutions that are present, and the Christian sect in question is usually supported officially in one form or another(taxes). When the populace of a nation is skeptical of government, they may also be skeptical of the religion as well, or feel free to criticize it openly due to having almost no church/state separation.

[Leopolds Ghost]

95. I don't think we really disagree.

I'm against government sanctioned religion -- I'm also against government imposed government, period -- for the most part.

Anyone who thinks God (or gods) is on America's side, or that the American state needs to acknowledge a deity in order to seek its blessing, is an evil person because they are terminal narcissists. One don't have to argue theology to realize that.

Well, OK, I am being judgemental there. (see, this is how it begins. It would not end there. If anyone of us had unlimited power, we would quickly become prone to intolerance in an unconscious effort to maintain that power against our percieved enemies. Intolerance is a human disease that afflicts us all.)

I would like to hear Obama talk about how he plans to return power back to the people and out of the hands of large, wealthy power brokers who like to lecture us about values they abandoned in order to get and maintain power, regardless of their religious beliefs.

THAT would be evidence of "community values" -- returning power back to our communities.

[incapsulated]

85. Only on DU

Would being a Christian who talks about their faith be considered a liability in a candidate, lol.

:silly:

[Az]

108. Its not so much that its a liability

In fact it is sure to make political headway. The problem is it is destructive to the political process of a secular nation. What religion a person is should not matter politically speaking. What should matter is their political ideas. If a candidate is flaunting their religion then its just pandering. They should let their ideas speak for them. Not some religious label that tells us nothing.

[incapsulated]

113. Maybe in Utopia, that would work

Sorry to be sarcastic, but this is an American election and these things matter. Especially when the right has portrayed Democrats as a bunch of hedonistic, decadent, latte-sippers with no "morals". Yes, the hypocrisy is to laugh, but it is true.

I still have no problem with a candidate talking about their religion if it is important to them, any more than I would object to hearing about their upbringing, their background, what forms their world view, their values. For a lot of people, their faith is a part of that, it doesn't mean they want to impose it on everyone else. Obama is a democrat, not a fundamentalist loon.

[Az]

133. So should we strive towards Utopia or Dystopia?

Because as I see it pandering just leads to lowering expectations over time. And that brings us to where we are today. Shouldn't our leaders strive for excellence? It is a pyrrhic victory if we win an election but lower the standards. And if we keep piling such victories up eventually we will have no ideals at all.

[Perky]

136. "The problem is it is destructive to the political process of a secular nation"

So any political expression of religious value ought to be silenced because it is religious?

[Az]

139. No

It is the idea of campaigning based on religion being the defining quality of the candidate. It is placing religion in politics that is devisive. Its not that it should be silenced. It is that it should be eschewed.

Bringing religion into politics can only lead to one of two paths. It is either empty pandering and usary of religion to get votes. Or it is devisive and exclusionary via excluding all those who are not of that religion.

One can never take the religion out of the candidate. But one need not place religion in the campaign.

[Perky]

141. SO on that basis would you vote for Obama?

[Az]

143. I wish he would campaign differently

But I would not vote against his religion.

[BurtWorm]

87. Professions of Christianity from a Democrat? Scary?

:spray:

[saltpoint]

98. Obama is an intellect and not a reactionary. Schenck is a reactionary.

That hinge is huge.

Moreover private faith is not a sound basis for public policy.

No one obstructs Schenck's path to his church; no one from his church should choose what's on my library shelves.

[Az]

106. The trick

While our government is secular in nature it is impossible to seperate a person's religion from their actions. But that is not what is asked of a representitive of a secular government. Their beliefs are going to form the basis of their actions. But they cannot base the justification of their political positions on their beliefs and expect others to follow them. The reasoning for their positions must be put forward in a secular manner such that all can consider the position on equal terms. That is to say the laws of the land must stand on reason and not because Jesus said so.

That is the trick. You can be a religious person and be part of the government. But your religion cannot be the justification for your positions.

The problem is that it is so easy in this day and age to make political headway by professing your faith before the people. As long as its the right faith. And that there is the problem. Even Obama ran afoul of not being quite the right kind of Christian.

Unfortunately as soon as you drag religion into the mess it polarizes everything. It pushes honest ideas to the side and forces a monolithic way of thinking onto the process. I just came back from a concert and it reminds me of watching the mosh pit in action. Everyone was getting along fine until the moshers started their nonsense. And either you joined in or were forced out of the area.

Its perfectly fine that Obama is religious. But if that is what he is running on then we are in trouble. Because you can hide anything under the guise of religion.

[Skittles]

110. I don't want religion mixed with politics PERIOD

keep it in f***ing church where it BELONGS

[Hamlette]

120. I think it is terrifying to think we would allow any expression of faith in politics

What happens if Bush says God told him to invade Iran.

How do you respond? You can argue that God didn't really tell him that, or God is wrong. Or you can say we should not listen to god, or god shouldn't/wouldn't tell us to go to war. But when you do, you have people calling you "despicable" for trying "to silence faith-based expressions of policy and politics."

Remember. Bush says God told him to invade Iraq. He could make other decisions on the same basis. Shouldn't I be allowed to say he's nuts without people thinking I'm "dispicable"?

Or is it just democratic faith you want to allow?

[Bluebear]

122. Bush isn't a "real Christian"

:sarcasm:

At least that is what I hear when leaders who profess a certain faith act in ways that are uncomplimentary to said religion. And yes, perhaps their actions do not mirror the teachings of their God; still I have to take them at their word that they belong to said religion. Who am I to decide who is a "real" this or that?

[Hamlette]

147. Oh, I'd forgotten the "you're not a real Christian" insult

Now I understand why Mormons have a fit when people say they are not real christians. I've always considered it a compliment when people tell me I'm not a Christian...judging by how "real Christians" behave these days. (I'm talking about the ones in the news. I know many wonderful Christians. They are ones who are acting like Christians and not spending all their time telling me they are Christian.)

When someone tells me they take a position based on god or religion I say they are fake but I can't say their religion is fake.

Got it.

[MSchreader]

126. Political Christianity is no different than other similar politicized religious movements

Such as political Islam or political Judaism, both of which also hold state power in countries. It has no place in the political life of any ostensibly progressive, modern (and secular) society.

If you want to personally believe in religion and religious values, that's fine and it's your right to do so. If you want to let it motivate and shape your policy making, that's a problem because you will end up attempting to turn your "morals" into our laws.

Martin

[Pastiche423]

129. Why was this not posted in the religion forum?

Din't think you'd get enough hits?

Our founders wrote our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No where in either document is the word "christ".

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

There should be no faith-based politics!


Damnit, I was beginning to like Obama.

[Jonathan50]

130. Should religious dogma be taught in public schools?

This goes directly to the expression of religious faith by politicians and the using of religious faith in setting public policy.

http://pewforum.org/surveys/origins/

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, conducted July 7-17 among 2,000 adults, also finds deep religious and political differences over questions relating to evolution and the origins of life. Overall, about half the public (48%) says that humans and other living things have evolved over time, while 42% say that living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Fully 70% of white evangelical Protestants say that life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time; fewer than half as many white mainline Protestants (32%) and white Catholics (31%) agree.

Despite these fundamental differences, most Americans (64%) say they are open to the idea of teaching creationism along with evolution in the public schools, and a substantial minority (38%) favors replacing evolution with creationism in public school curricula. While much of this support comes from religious conservatives, these ideas ­ particularly the idea of teaching both perspectives ­ have a broader appeal. Even many who are politically liberal and who believe in evolution favor expanding the scope of public school education to include teaching creationism. But an analysis of the poll also reveals that there are considerable inconsistencies between people's beliefs and what they want taught in the schools, suggesting some confusion about the meaning of terms such as "creationism" and "evolution."

[Perky]

131. No and it is not because religious dogma is wrong

It's because it it an abdidication of responsibiity by Clergy and parents alike. And a very poor substitute for evangelism. Why some in the faith advovate this is beyond me. And besides ~Christians could never get togther on what dogma should be taught anyway.

[LWolf]

134. Here is what I reject:

I reject the use of faith to earn votes. Faith is a sacred thing, is it not? It is blasphemed, in my opinion, when it is used for political gain of any sort.

From outside the xtian faith, public expression can be seen as a way of attracting attention for other reasons. For those who believe that faith is a private matter between oneself and the divine, it is embarrassing at best and corrupt at worst.

From inside, some may be referencing Matthew:

<snip>

Mathew 6: 5-15
When you pray, don't be like the hypocrites. They love to stand in their synagogues and on the street corners and pray loudly. They want people to see them pray. I tell you the truth. They already have their full reward. When you pray, you should go into your room and close the door. Then pray to your Father who cannot be seen. Your Father can see what is done in secret, and he will reward you.

While prayer isn't the same thing as public pronouncements of faith, the correlation is obvious.

Perhaps that is one source of discomfort about anyone's public remarks about being "christian." Other sources include, of course, the blatant agenda of organized christian religion to be the one, the only, recognized path to the divine, and the blatantly corrupt means they are willing to use to further that agenda. While there are plenty of good people who practice a christian faith, or who consider themselves "christian," as an organized entity, the discomfort is quite legitimate.

Should anyone reject Obama because of his public pronouncements of faith? Only if they believe that the public pronouncements are made for personal or political gain, or if they believe that it is in the best interest of the nations to keep faith and politics separate, or to keep xtians out of positions of power whenever possible.

Those beliefs are just as valid as Obama's, and just as legitimate a topic for public discussion when they touch upon the political.

Obama doesn't have my support. Not because he is a "christian," although his including that fact in campaign speeches adds another reason. He does not have my support because I find his too-short record to be inconsistent. There are things to applaud, and things to cause concern, in that record. I'm not moved by grand rhetoric.

[saltpoint]

149. The Crusades were a faith-based initiative.

In our time George Bush has stuck Jesus to his lapel so he could mollify the insane, fundamentalist voters who have seized control of his party.

His "faith-based" initiatives are a cynical ploy to mollify those nutbags on one hand and subvert the public service function of true government on the other.

I'm extremely distrustful of anything that blurs the line between private faith and public policy.

[toddaa]

153. How ironic you post this right after an atheist was run off the campaign trail by a theocrat

In order to be a persecuted minority, it helps to be a minority. And persecuted.

[Bluebear]

154. Timing makes for strange irony sometimes, doesn't it? nt