That religious fundamentalists try to persuade or recruit me ISN'T the problem I have with them.

[Silent3]

One person wanting to change another person's mind is not a crime in my book. One person saying bad things about what another person believes is free speech, not an unforgivable assault, not intrusive interference in that person's life.

If religious believers are passionate about what they believe, and think belief has important consequences, they SHOULD speak out. As long as they don't try to use violence or the force of law to IMPOSE their beliefs on others, I have no problem with their desire to evangelize.

My problem with religious fundamentalists is in their ACTIONS, not their WORDS. Prop 8, for example. Trying to deny women access to abortion. Pushing ineffective abstinence-only sex ed over much more effective sex ed that includes discussion of birth control. Using the military to promote Christianity and ostracize and even intimidate other kinds of believers and non-believers. Forcing schools to eliminate or water-down important teaching of science when it comes to evolution.

Why do I bring this up? Because I'm sure many people would call me an "atheist fundamentalist". Am I trying to outlaw religion? Nope. Am I trying to pass laws for mandatory abortions and mandatory gay marriages? Nope. Am I running a campaign to have "IN GOD WE DON'T TRUST" stamped on our coinage? No, not even that.

But I do speak out about being an atheist. I do criticize religion. I do think the world would be a better place without religion or other supernatural and superstitious beliefs. And I'm not afraid to say these things.

If you're a Democrat (a pretty safe bet for most readers here) and you'd like to convince Republicans to switch sides and vote for Democrats, does that make you a Democratic Fundamentalist? Are you an intolerant bastard if you scoff at and mock the failed economic policies of the Bush years?

If I'm an atheist, why should I have to tiptoe around saying what I think about, for example, transubstantiation, more than I would about tax cuts for the rich?

When it comes to tax policy, I actually am working to change laws and "impose" my views on other people! When it comes to claiming that little pieces of bread can be transformed by prayer into bits of dead savior meat, I just laugh and point out how silly, and how very weird, I think that idea is, nothing more.

How is using the force of law to make a few rich people pay more taxes than they want to pay, against their BELIEFS it what's fair or not fair, not "fundamentalist", while mere verbal criticism with no imposed burdens or restrictions is something that gets denounced as intolerance and fundamentalism?

[Democrats_win]

1. Even very religious people can see the bad works of false "christianity."

Recruitment is actually something that is required of Christians. But many don't do that. Instead, they criticize our elected politicians. That is something they really shouldn't be doing--especially the leaders of so-called "christian" churches.

While the Jehovah's Witnesses are marching to your door to "recruit" you, the Catholics, the Lutherans, the Baptists and all the rest are walking through the back door into our congress demanding that our rights be handed over to THEM. Now, who is right, the Jehovah's Witnesses, who look you in the eye or false religious leaders who stab you in the back?

[Silent3]

3. I don't think being religious means you shouldn't criticize politicians...

...but the religious are missing the point if they can't make a secular argument for what's wrong with the policies and politicians they criticize, and if they're doing making their criticisms from the pulpit their church's tax-exempt status should be challenged.

As for the Jehovah's Witnesses, I think they're batshit crazy, but as long as they don't knock on my door at an unreasonable hour, and as long as they're polite and take no for an answer and leave when I decline their message, it would be hypocritical for me to criticize their door knocking when I've done the same kind of door knocking for political candidates.

[keroro gunsou]

60. the betrayal

you can see is trivial. what is truly fearsome is the betrayal you never see coming.

[Arugula Latte]

2. Good post. Some religious posters here see any criticism of religion, a belief system, as an attack

They think we shouldn't be allowed to say that we think certain beliefs are ridiculous. Well, I do think certain beliefs are ridiculous. I don't care if they're Republican, Christian, New Age, Heaven's Gate, zoroathrianism, Scientology, what have you -- belief systems are open to criticism. I think it's silly that Mormons wear magic underwear. I think it's laughable to believe that L. Ron Hubbard went to another planet on a space ship. I think it's laughable to think that Jesus was the only supernatural human in the 6 billion-year existence of the planet and I think it's terribly short-sighted to focus on the last 2,000 years -- a tiny, tiny fraction of a drop in the ocean of time that has preceded this one. But ... so what? People believe and disbelieve all sorts of things. We should be allowed to express our opinions about these beliefs.

[nichomachus]

4. I'll disagree

Trying to convert me -- without my having expressed any interest -- is a direct criticism of my spiritual beliefs, basically telling me that I am flawed at a very deep level of my being. That is offensive. It's like telling me that I'm raising my children wrong or that my spouse is ugly.

These are things that an intimate acquaintance might do -- or not -- but for a stranger to do it is clearly offensive. More so, if it's some 19-year-old brainwashed "missionary" standing on my doorstep.

If your religious beliefs have led you to lead an exemplary life, I might ask you about them. If so, go ahead. If not, leave me alone.

[LanternWaste]

8. Self delete...

[nichomachus]

9. No politics and spiritual beliefs are worlds apart

It is not the same

[LanternWaste]

10. I think they are both human constructs...

I think they are both human constructs which exist no where but our own imaginations-- both having only as much direct physical power as we allow them.



However, you are saying that it is morally benign to attempt to convert someone politically, but not religiously?

[nichomachus]

12. Yes I am

Politics refers to your actions and opinions in the public sphere. Spiritual beliefs are at a much much deeper level. I feel free to criticize your political beliefs. I don't feel free to criticize your spiritual beliefs. I may criticize your actions, but you are free to believe anything and I have no business intruding on that.

[LanternWaste]

16. But if they are both man-made constructs

But if they are both man-made constructs, then both only have the depth or shallowness of meaning that we subjectively apply to them. I don't really see a precise and relevant moral difference

From my perspective, it's as though you're stating, "I am morally bound to completely ignore one of your imaginary beliefs, yet morally bound to convert you/feel offended should you attempt to convert me in regards to nothing more than another imaginary belief."

edited: clarity

[barbtries]

54. well put

i wanted to say yes as well but you said why where i was at a loss. thank you

[Silent3]

17. What constitutes "trying"?

Is writing books such a "The God Delusion", like Richard Dawkins has done, which you can choose to read or not, "trying to convert you"? Is posting in online forums where many topics are already on the table "trying" in an objectionably intrusive way?

If you don't like people doing something as forward as knocking on your door to try to convert you, I can kind of understand that, and I'm not that pushy myself about atheism. I have knocked on people's doors, however, to help persuade them (or at least motivate them, if they're already Democrats) to vote for Democrats.

Perhaps you don't think I should knock on doors for either political reasons or religious reasons. I wouldn't agree with you on that, but at least if you felt that way about both things you'd be consistent.

If religious door knocking is unacceptable to you, but political door knocking is acceptable, what's the difference? That religion is more deeply personal than politics?

If I as an atheist grant religion and "spirituality" a special haven that atheism doesn't get that's a self-defeating behavior. I believe that one of the reasons religion flourishes is that it's seldom challenged, that it's often granted an unearned aura of respectability without having to earn that respect. I do respect the RIGHT to believe as one wishes, but I don't automatically respect that which is believed, nor do I respect any supposed right of believers to be shielded from words and idea that might cause them offense.

It's like telling me that I'm raising my children wrong or that my spouse is ugly.

If I heard that someone was, for example, raising their children to hate black people, I would tell them that they were raising their children wrong, and I wouldn't care if they were offended.

[snake in the grass]

64. I totally agree with you.

Nothing irks me more than being accosted in front of the supermarket or while I'm trying to get into my car, much less when they dare to knock on my door. I have absolutely no use for these people.

[WildEyedLiberal]

5. Because transubstantiation - to use your example - has zero impact on YOUR life

Unlike, say, tax cuts for the rich, which impact everyone.

Yes, you should speak out when people try to impose their religious beliefs on others, eg, abortion, gay marriage, or "intelligent design," - or even to protest the general prevalence of religious belief in our society. All of these are political opinions with ramifications that impact all of society, and you should stand up and be heard.

BUT I fail to see why people's *personal* beliefs - as long as they remain personal - matter to you at all. Why do you feel it important, for example, to say transubstantiation is bullshit? Are Catholics trying to pass a law forcing you to believe that communion wafers are the true Body of Christ? If not, then honestly, why feel the need to "speak up" about it at all? If someone confronts you and pushes it in your face, then yes, I'd expect you to disagree or say you thought it was silly. But why belittle people's private beliefs, even if you think they are silly? When "beliefs" start to impact society at large - like libertarian free market "beliefs" inevitably do - then they become matters of public interest and up for public debate and dissection. Ditto with religious beliefs the minute they are introduced into the public sphere. But private personal beliefs in ritual and the nature of God/the universe? I just don't see how those have any bearing on the public discourse.

You're still free, of course, to say whatever you want about them. Nothing's stopping you from saying it's all bullshit. But I just question what you hope to gain from loudly belittling people's private faith.

[Silent3]

34. I think a more rational society would be a better society.

While transubstantiation itself has no particular impact on my life, the kind of magical thinking that supports such beliefs does. Everyone carefully tiptoeing around ideas just because they're labeled "religious" allows both benign and dangerous foolishness to flourish.

Believing in transubstantiation isn't as dangerous as, say, believing your child's cancer is a test of faith from God, to be treated only by prayer. But the reasoning is the same. Both beliefs require adopting a viewpoint that scientific tests don't matter, that rational mechanisms for physical transformations don't matter, that believing strongly enough and sincerely enough is all that matters. The wafer looks the same under a microscope before and after prayer -- ignore it, faith is what matters. The child's tumors have continued to advance regardless of prayer -- ignore it, faith is what matters.

If you hold back the rational argument in one case, but not in the other, the person who's not taking their sick child to the doctor is going to feel more empowered to rely on faith because, in so many other circumstance our society praises and bolsters reliance on faith as a special, wonderful, noble thing.

[progressoid]

6. Whatever.

Just don't piss off Thor

[Rebel Scum]

56. Damn Straight!

[barbtries]

7. i do have a problem with being proselytized,

a large one, and this is it: it is disrespectful. i don't appreciate being disrespected by anyone whether it is someone who loves me or someone i've never met before in my life. i believe what i believe and who is anybody else to tell me otherwise? if i respect them enough not to impose my beliefs on them, how dare they knock on my door, ring my phone, or accost me in public in order to impose their beliefs on me? why does the discussion always launch from the perspective of that book they like to tout their adherence to - oh, yeah, the "bible" - being a sacred text, the word of GAWD, when that belief is just as anti empirical as any other spiritual belief? why must i get hostile and defensive in order to get rid of them? why do they keep bouncing up with their drugged eyes to implore me further to allow them to save my soul even though i have slammed the door in their faces and told them straight up, "don't proselytize me!" ?

i am not without faith and i engage the spiritual side of my nature frequently and in my own damn way. i do not believe in a cognizant gawd. THESE ARE VALID BELIEFS and i deserve the respect at the very fucking least to hold them in peace.

also: you don't like these things about fundamentalist christian evangelicals: Using the military to promote Christianity and ostracize and even intimidate other kinds of believers and non-believers. Forcing schools to eliminate or water-down important teaching of science when it comes to evolution. don't you realize that these actions ARE proselytizing?

i doubt that there are atheists who could ever be described as fundamentalists, because they live in the 21st century, where women are people who have choices, and a person's sexuality has nothing to do with that person's relative "good" or "bad" ness let alone their civil rights, etc. but there are probably plenty of atheists who are right wing reactionaries. cie la vie or however that goes.

[struggle4progress]

11. Wow. I pretty much agree with you about policy. But then, you set out

to identify religion with "superstitious beliefs." That's insulting. Really, it is. And it's unnecessary. It's also politically stupid

Personally, I want effective sex-ed and health-care available to people. I don't want the military to promote a particular religion -- or any religion. I want the schools to teach evolution. I want In G-d we trust off the coinage, too

Such goals require coalitions

And if your post is any indication of how you usually run your mouth, I don't want you within a hundred miles of any coalition I ever work with

[GillesDeleuze]

13. How is prayer NOT superstitious?

???

[struggle4progress]

15. Your post suggests to me that:

(1) you and I don't use the word "prayer" in the same way;
(2) you are nevertheless absolutely convinced that you understand what others mean by "prayer"; and
(3) you therefore feel it appropriate to insult people

There's no reason to think any productive discussion can occur in that context

Of course, you're completely free to take whatever view of it you choose: if you don't want to pray, don't

It might, however, be to your own psychological advantage not to pretend arrogantly to yourself that you know how or what others think

[redqueen]

19. How is thinking that prayer is superstitious an insult to anyone?

Taking things personally when they are not stated in such a way (as opposed to calling people ignorant puritans or some such BS) is also not conducive to having a productive discussion.

It would have been better to have just explained the miscommunication, by stating what your definition of 'prayer' is... rather than characterizing the opinion that prayer is superstitious as somehow personally insulting.

[struggle4progress]

27. Nope. Not playing. But thanks anyway. I've never heard "superstitious"

used as a complement, and neither have you; I've posted in the Religion/Theology forum at DU for years, and I can pretty well predict where the discussion would go

And it would be a grand distraction from point I made in my #11

[redqueen]

30. deleted

nevermind

[GillesDeleuze]

35. not looking for a pissing match

about your previous posts for years.


im simply sick of all you believers telling me im insulting them when i call an irrational belief what it is.



put up a defense or STFU about all the insults your superstitious beliefs cause...

[struggle4progress]

37. My point was made in #11: winning political fights involves building coalitions

Your STFU about all the insults your superstitious beliefs cause tells me you probably wouldn't be very useful in that capacity

[JuniperLea]

49. Why does it need to be a compliment

In order for it NOT to be an insult? That makes no sense.

Unless you are the thought police, you cannot make someone believe in prayer, or believe it is anything other than superstition. I believe it is superstition, and I will not tolerate anyone insulting me by saying I'm wrong. It's my opinion, and it's a valid opinion.

[struggle4progress]

62. Huh? I never made any attempt to encourage you to "believe in prayer"

But you know that. It doesn't offend me if you don't. But you know that, too

I do consider broad-brush stereotyping of religious views to be ignorant and politically counterproductive

[Fumesucker]

67. It's bad luck to be superstitious..

jk

[GillesDeleuze]

21. your post says to me:

that you take superstition as an insult, says more about your beliefs than mine.

[struggle4progress]

28. My point was made in #11. This bilge is just a diversion

[Silent3]

43. Perhaps a distinction is being made between...

...intercessory prayer and the word "prayer" used to refer to something more like private meditation, which is only meant and expected to have a purely internal effect on the state of mind of the person praying?

If you think some Sky Daddy is going to intervene in earthly affairs on your behalf when you pray, I'd call that superstition. If you think a Sky Daddy is listening, even while holding no hope for divine intervention, that's still superstitious, but to a lesser degree. If you expect neither, then calling what you're doing "prayer" is a bit of a stretch for something I'd prefer to call meditation.

[struggle4progress]

46. I would refer you again to my post #11. I share certain policy interests with you, but

I consider your sky daddy jabber to be unproductive, uninteresting, and immature

[Silent3]

53. I'll see your #11, and raise you a #39.

:)

[hfojvt]

48. Isn't it only superstition if there is, in fact, no sky daddy?

It would not be superstitious for me to call or write my earth daddy and ask for help, would it? Thus, you put the idea that there is a creator on the same level as the idea that crossing my fingers will keep me from bowling a split. Is it okay if I call your apparent certainty in this a superstition?

[Silent3]

51. Avoiding black cat's isn't superstitious if black cats are, in fact, unlucky.

But just as there is no proof that black cats are unlucky, there's no proof of divine beings, and no proof of the efficacy of prayer (beyond the placebo effect). It's possible for new evidence to change what is or is not worthy of the label superstition, but as available evidence stands right now, praying (with expectation of intercessory results) is just as superstitious as worrying about broken mirrors causing bad luck (apart from a possibly increased risk of stepping on glass splinters).

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Well, if I may...

President Obama insists that GLBT people be able to make coalitions with clergy folks who call us pedophiles, he invites them to head the table. So if the religious can not bear being called superstitious, I guess they are pretty dang thin skinned by the standards of big town political coalitions. Seems their side can dish out huge steaming piles of vitriol, but can not stand even one person having a negative word for them. Their own religion teaches, clearly, that one gets back what one puts forth. Years of slander from the Phelps crowd, to the Warrens and McClurkins, Shaftley, Roberton, Falwell and the rest are slices of bread upon the waters, and they were taught that such crust returns.
They stand for the public slander of others, but take great umbrage if they are not treated with slathering words of submission. Warren is America's pastor and he equates my partnership with inscest. When I object to Warren, I am told to reach out. Perhaps the religious folks should be reaching out, and showing us all how much they have learned from their devout practice.

[struggle4progress]

18. Your reasoning pretty much sucks:

Somebody in subgroup Aa of group A calls members of group B "pedophiles"
And your reaction is: let's try to insult everybody in group A

Who needs playground clique games? I don't

You want to win fights? Then build some coalitions. I wouldn't presume to tell you exactly who your coalitions should include, and obviously a winning coalition won't include everyone. But the broader the coalition is, the more chance of success it has -- assuming its aims are sufficiently clear and precise

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Where did I insult anyone? Show me.

My point is that what you expect is far better treatment than others get from the religous side. My other point is that the religious people are the ones who claim to be so good at treating people well...you see? The religious are taught to be modest and direct of speech, for example. They are taught not to judge.
The point is, religionists on DU expect to get what they refuse to give. Respect. The point is to look at what is expected of others, and look at what you demand, and know that the first shall be last, and act as you see fit.

[GillesDeleuze]

26. "but our Truth has a capital 'T'

great post.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Still waiting to be shown where I insulted or called for insulting

anyone, much less everyone. The one they call Christ said, let your yes be yes, and your no be no. Funny that the religious of his time were just like the ones now...spinning and proclaiming right up till the moment they drive the first nail.

[struggle4progress]

38. "the religious can not bear being called superstitious ... They stand for the public slander of

others, but take great umbrage if they are not treated with slathering words of submission"

Stereotype much?

[Hello_Kitty]

69. No it's true, and you're proving it.

[struggle4progress]

33. My point is about building coalitions: reread #11

You don't know diddly about me or what I expect from people

I have, however, seen a number of grassworks political coalitions in my life

[hfojvt]

47. expect to get what they do not give?

Huh? Usually religionists here are responding to insults of religion. What is the title of this thread? How many threads have there ever been that start off "My problem with atheists is ..." How many DUers have ever written "I do think this would be a better world if there were no atheists and I am not afraid to say so."? Are there signature lines that say "this would be the best of all possible worlds if only there was no atheism in it"?

So you are saying that because Falwell types do not respect you that it is thereby for you to disrespect religious DUers because religious DUers were the ones who started the whole lack of respect?

[Javaman]

20. Very well said.

Or in a nut shell, they can dish it out but they can't take it. :)

Cheers!

[Bluenorthwest]

24. indeed

they are also unable to make a point without calling names, using vulgar language, or bearing false witness, all things they were taught not to do. Ay me! They can preach but not practice, dish but not take.

[JuniperLea]

25. Doesn't say much for their faith in their God, does it?

If I were passing judgment on others like this, and I knew my God was watching... the one who specifically told me NOT to do such things... and I did it anyway... hmmm... I guess they don't believe their God means business if they can ignore him like that.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. I know their scriptures very well

and none of them really do. They don't know what they were taught to do. On the subject at hand, I am constantly amazed that they demand respect for themselves and their faith, for they are taught, clearly and by the messiah, that they should rejoice when they are mocked for his sake. But do they rejoice? No. They build a rhetorical bludgeon to demand that all people show proper deference. A generation of vipers, a well groomed graveyard.

[JuniperLea]

32. I was raised in a Fundy church...

I'm agnostic because of the experience in that hypocrisy.

Whatever you do for these the lesser of my brethren, you do for me.

I always figured a "lesser" person was someone you were looking down upon, which is bad in the first place, because if you are looking down on someone, you are judging them.

Saddam Hussein was one of God's children too. I just about made a Fundy head spin saying that.

Yes, the Bible tells of much suffering and much mocking... suffering for his name's sake... they should be rejoicing, no question.

[GillesDeleuze]

23. Superstition: noun—

a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge

[struggle4progress]

36. superstition --

irrational belief usually founded on ignorance or fear and characterized by obsessive reverence for omens, charms, etc ... http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definitions/superstition

a belief that some objects or actions are lucky or unlucky, or that they cause events to happen, based on old ideas of magic ... http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/superstition

Common Superstitions
http://www.csicop.org/superstition/library/common.html

[tkmorris]

40. And you don't see the resemblance?

[struggle4progress]

42. I see that many people want to avoid the issue I raised in #11

[Silent3]

65. Your quoted definitions of superstition describe well many things...

...that many religious believers believe.

Isn't spinning a prayer wheel, as if that action is really sending out waves of compassion or purifying karma, a matter of "belief that some objects or actions are lucky or unlucky, or that they cause events to happen, based on old ideas of magic"? It certainly seems to me that unless you think the effect of spinning a prayer wheel is nothing more than disturbing the air and creating a little frictional heat, or, to be generous, perhaps something that changes your own internal mental state because of the thoughts you associate with the action, then you're engaged in a superstitious activity.

If you think that a priest saying a prayer over a wafer of bread transforms the substance of the bread into the flesh of a long-dead so-called savior, how is that not "based on old ideas of magic"?

How is fearfully refraining from pre-marital sex, masturbation, or homosexuality because you fear some unseen powerful entity will punish you for these things not superstition?

How is hanging a crucifix from your rear view mirror, thinking it will make you safer, not an irrational belief in a charm? Even without involving a physical charm, isn't intercessory prayer superstitious?

Yes, I know there are people out there with very intellectualized forms of religious belief who might not believe in or practice any of this stuff, but the vast majority of religious believers aren't very intellectual about it.

[Silent3]

39. I have long term and short term goals...

...and I have the ability to be diplomatic when need be. I'll argue religion on DU, I won't do so with a grieving relative at a funeral. If I need diplomacy in the short term to form a coalition, I'll avoid unproductive challenges to people's beliefs.

Long term, however, I prefer to contribute to what I believe is growing support for atheism, rationalism, and skepticism. My sometimes abrasive approach doesn't win many on-the-spot converts, but it does help make other non-believers feel safer speaking out, it does help people who feel doubts about religious and spiritual claims feel less afraid to confront those doubts, to feel like they have plenty of friends out there who share their doubts, who won't condemn them for a "lack of faith".

[immoderate]

41. Since this argument, like many, is over the meaning of words...

Let me quote my Merriam-Webster. (Your results (dictionary) may vary.)

prayer:

1 a (1) : an address (as a petition) to God or a god in word or thought *said a prayer for the success of the voyage* (2) : a set order of words used in praying b : an earnest request or wish
2 : the act or practice of praying to God or a god *kneeling in prayer*
3 : a religious service consisting chiefly of prayers often used in plural
4 : something prayed for
5 : a slight chance *haven't got a prayer*

superstition

1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

I see a pretty close correspondence here between what most people would call superstition, and the most common purpose of prayer. What would prayer mean if not some petition to a supernatural power to cause a change in fate?

Years ago, my father had a business partner who would not come to our house because my brother had a black cat. He thought that would lead to his having bad luck. Is it insulting to call this superstition? So what is the difference?

On edit: I realize I would not confront my father's partner about his belief, because it would be impolitic. Nevertheless, it was superstition. This is a discussion board. Shouldn't we be calling things honestly?

--imm

[struggle4progress]

45. I regard your post as a wonderful illustration of the point I made in #11

The OP mentioned a number of concrete policy issues

I pointed out in #11 that policy fights require coalitions and suggested it is counter-productive to insult people

The response? An entire subthread of people like yourself, eager to explain why they regard religion as superstition, your contribution being to equate prayer with the fear of black cats! Of course, we can bicker all day about whether prayer is the same as fear of black cats -- and if we ever resolved it, the resolution would have no political/policy consequences. So I think it a stupid discussion. But since you seem to be interested in this point, I will remark that I have no special terror of black cats

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. So you call for a coalition...

and then you insult people who have a fear of black cats?

Isn't that a little hypocritical?

[struggle4progress]

59. My saying "I have no special terror of black cats" insults you? That seems odd to me,

since I'm not at all insulted by people telling me they don't follow my religion or by people telling me they don't follow any religion at all

Although I have no special terror of black cats, I'm really not inclined to make fun of people who are terrified of black cats: I think everyone I've ever met has had some ideas I find strange

[immoderate]

57. You almost have it.

I think you can read the definitions as well as I can. The confluence is there whether I point it out or not. Unless you disagree with the definitions I quoted, it's pretty clear.

I pointed out that I didn't confront him about it, just as I wouldn't have initiated a discussion of our religious differences. But we were not posting ideas to a internet site whose purpose is to explore ideas. And I acknowledged that was a point in your post. What you have not done is point out any difference between religion and superstition. You are just saying it's not polite to talk about it.

As far as building coalitions is concerned, these would be over matters that are agreed upon, and to get into arguments over superfluous topics like religion would not make sense. Maybe your point is that religion should never be a topic on what is fundamentally a political board, but since religion influences politics that would be difficult. Considering the range of religious beliefs, or just plain beliefs, it is easy to find people who disagree on things and would therefore take offense.

Our disagreement here would not prevent us from working in concert on issues that involve the environment, human rights, distribution of wealth, and many other things. :)

--imm

[struggle4progress]

61. It is a sociological error to assume a dictionary "definition" conveys

meanings. It is a logical error to assume that the mental model that you yourself associate with the use of words is the only possible mental model

I saying some rather more than simply encouraging politeness. Abstractions have multiple possible referents: if one wants to understand what people mean by what they say, it is necessary to try to understand how they might use their words, and their uses might differ from yours even if everyone agrees somewhat with the dictionaries

[immoderate]

63. I agree that dictionaries are not proscriptive.

And I implied that in my post. Dictionaries report how words are used. And yes, everybody has a unique world view that represents the universe they experience. We both seem to have a negative connotation that we associate with the word "superstition," which references irrational beliefs. The difference is, I don't give an exemption to religious beliefs.

The dictionary is not the final authority, but as I said above, most arguments are about the meaning of words.

--imm

[JuniperLea]

50. So, you are insulted by someone's opinion...

And then go on to actually insult the poster.

Methinks you loose all credibility.

[Hello_Kitty]

68. I wouldn't want to be in a coalition with you

You seem to require a great deal more validation for your silly superstitions than I'm willing to give you.

[hfojvt]

44. the problem is in the way these things take over

There is little discussion here about tax policy, but it is very easy for discussions about transubstantiation and various religious ideas to generate a lot of heat. However, if you want to actually win elections for progressives or Democrats, it's probably not a good idea to always be discussing or arguing about things which are irrelevant to progressivism. Thus having a signature line that says "transubstantiation is the stupidest idea I have ever heard" or "this would be an ideal world if only there was no religion in it" is perhaps not the best way to advance progressive ideas about taxes or other progressive ideas.

The question is whether you think a battle against religion is key to the progressive platform or not.

But at least you admit what is often denied

"I do think the world would be a better place without religion or other supernatural and superstitious beliefs."

So I can bookmark this thread the next time there is another "DUers are not anti-religion" thread.

[redqueen]

52. "The myth that DU & liberals in general hate the religious."

In case you STILL missed it:

"hate the religious"


Not "are anti-religion". I'm quite proud to say I'm anti-religion.

[immoderate]

58. So, you think religion is irrelevant to progressivism?

Maybe it's not.

--imm

[spoony]

66. Good idea but bookmarking's not really necessary

As evidenced by the last "DUers are not religion bashers" thread, there is plenty of contradictory ammunition just posted IN those threads. One rarely needs to look far :P

[Hello_Kitty]

70. Okay let's talk about tax policy

Let's talk about how churches are tax exempt, even if they don't spend a single penny outside of their own congregation.

[TWiley]

71. Keep it simple ..... dislike them because they are assholes.