angry when I see someone like Barack do the god bless thing.

He is probably an atheist, at least he should be.

We are a very immature country

Other than you would like him to be?

Bryant

Since a belief in god is so fucking silly and dumb and childish, I am hoping more and more people like him come to that conclusion.

Yes, I believed once.

Yes I am a fan of his.

When I see a kind generous person I used to naturally assume they are a good Christian believer. But of course as I grew up I realized that there are plenty of kind generous people who are of all faiths or no faith at all.

I suppose that's part of growing up - realizing that worthwhile people belong to all sorts of religions and belief systems - or have no need of that.

Bryant

fine...but religion is so completely destructive and while there are many goods that come from it, the bad's far outweigh;understatement of all time

I think we are seeing more and more young people in religiously free countries like europe and usa who are just not believing

I prefer to look past belief systems to the person behind them, but I know that many people disagree with that approach.

Bryant

I guess I thought it was too wordy to suggest that I try to look past the belief systems or atheism of an individual to see what sort of person they really are. But I should have taken the time.

Bryant

taking great offense to my negative attitude about believers.

And I totally get why they react that way, but I am also trying to make the point that if I pretend that it is OK to believe in something so not real and harmful, as religion clearly is, then I am just contributing to the endless harm done by religion.

For anyone who believes in God I highly recommend the Ricky Gervais movie "The Invention of Lying"

I am a believer though, and I don't intend to change my beliefs.

At the end of the day we are fighting for two different worlds; we both agree that Religion is given too much power in our politics, sure, but for me the ideal is for religion to get out of politics and for people of all faiths and beliefs and atheists to come together on equal footing.

My guess is that your ideal solution is for believers like myself to stop believing, and become atheists like yourself. Correct me if I'm wrong but that seems to be your point of view. And if it is, than well, you can't really expect me to come around to that. Any more than I would expect you to agree with me if I were to say "Well I think we'd all be better off in America if we just accepted Jesus Christ as our savior."

Bryant

But when you say even ground of believers and atheists, even ground for what?

BTW

Grew up in Catholic School, was born again in my early 20's, etc.

Have been there, done that.

Spent years studying the bible as a Pentecostal and when I was in Catholic school.

So I do have some qualifications in this area.

But none of that is important, what is important is that we elect democrats and make sure republicans arent elected and we can work together on that I am certain.

Right now an Atheist faces an uphill climb to public office in many communities and in national elections. That's wrong. A Sikh or a Muslim or a Buddhist would face similar challenges. In recent history Jews and Catholics struggled. That's wrong too. Anybody should have the opportunity to run for office, and not have their beliefs or lack of belief disqualify them.

Bryant

making if I can have a non believer, that choice isnt really there right now.

And I do believe people like Bill or Hillary or Barack or maybe Al Franken or I dont know , you know, liberal, progressive, educated people, that many of them are atheists but could never admit it.

Cant prove it

"I know that NoJusticeNoPeace is a believer - he or she claims otherwise, but a good person like that? Must be a believer."

If i were to say that it's insulting on a few levels.

1. You are either calling those people liars or you are denying them the opportunity to define themselves as they choose.

2. You are implying that progressive and educated people can't be or are unlikely to be believers (in the same sense that my statement above implies that you can't be good without being a believer).

Bryant

by vitriol. Stupid people believe so anyone who isn't stupid must be an atheist or a liar.

or woman in the sky was a legitimate view point just one I dont share.

I no longer have time for that, too old, and the belief in that stuff is so ridiculous, causing so many problems.

It is my goal to get intelligent, mature people who still are handicapped with this "belief" to look at how absurd it is, when examined logically and in light of the ENDLESS problems created by one religion fighting another.

Like Muslims fighting Jewish or Christian or on and on and on, Christian fighting everybody (not all Christians).

I love some great Christians, Mike Thompson or Matsimela Mapfumo of Sirius radio who is a preacher and liberal radio guy.

But at the end of the day this shit has to stop and it is going to take opposition in a clear and intelligent way.

BTW, I am not sure how you are phrasing your question but please tell me you are NOT saying that NOT believing in god is a belief?

I have so much respect for you and your posting here, Kama, and that will continue no matter what you say, but please dont say that.


p.s. I know the way I talk about belief is off putting, and I have considered not doing it, but that will accomplish nothing. If nothing else, by stating it clear how harmful and non-thinking it is to have said belief, I start a conversation.

of religion?

I can see a minority leaving because of all the overt racism here, or a woman leaving because of all the overt misogyny or a gay person leaving because of all the homophobia, but religion?

I am not saying you are wrong, but I would be curious to see that.

but I'm already considering the option of leaving. I am asking myself why people here are so angry. It isn't what I consider a healthy and safe place to discuss issues. And I truly do not understand why atheists are so contemptuous of people who believe in god. I don't know what there is to hate about someone seeing the world differently than you do.

I don't know if Canada went as crazy during the Cold War as the United States did; I suspect not. But during the Cold War the United States was keen to distinguish themselves from the hated Communists. And the Republican Party, in particular, saw it as a club to beat the democrats with - remember that by Trumans election they hadn't had the White House in quite a number of years, and much of the New Deal was seen as non-controversial. They wanted something to tar their enemies with, and communism came to hand.

So what are the stereotypes of Russian Communists? They are anti-capitalist, pro-intellectual, and atheist (among others) - so Republicans started talking about the evils of Communism as much as they could, and at the same time, painted Liberals and Democrats as anti-capitalists, pointy-headed intellectuals, and atheists - in that context they were keen to play up that good Americans were Christians. (There is a lot to talk about in this transition, but just as one example, this is the era in which "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance).

As Democrats were attacked for these flaws, they fought back - sometimes by challanging the assumptions, but often by denying them and claiming to be just as pro-capitalist and religious as the Republicans.

Bryant

wasn't "In God We Trust" stamped on coins beginning in the 1950's in addition to Joseph McCarthy's bile?

See, I knew I'd learn something. Thanks!

I'd strongly recommend The Godless Constitution by Isaac Kramnick and R. Moore. It's a good read and it covers these issues going back to Colonial Times.

Bryant

Originally, I thought it was the result of Roe v, Wade, but it came about much sooner than that. And, while I've forgotten the details I read right here on DU, it had something to do with money.


It was also in part about the "Red Menace." In the 1950s, religious groups convinced Ike that adding "under God" to our Pledge of Allegiance would differentiate the US from the atheistic communists.

Now, it's about votes. Your voting base is not going to vote against you if you pray or not. However, especially in Presidential elections, the red needs independents and/or Democrats to win and Democrats need independents and/or Republicans to win. So, you pander on this issue, unless you are actually are religious, as I believe Carter and Kennedy were. Also, St. Ronnie Reagan has become a model for both parties in terms of winning elections. And religion was part of his deal.

I'm sure you'll get much better answer from people on this board who focus on religion tons more than I do. My big issue is separation of church and state--and I do believe religion should be a private matter. So should charitable acts and doing good deeds.

and that they could persuade a lot of voters to vote against their own best interests (economically) by pandering to their religious beliefs.

Russia banned religion.

Today's Republican party can lay claim to 3 major constituencies:

1) The VERY wealthy.

2) The lackeys/stooges of the very wealthy.

3) Single-issue Suckers.

I shouldn't need to explain why folks in the first category support those who will make them even wealthier. In fact, it's more of a mystery why there are ANY billionaire Democrats. This is the REAL power in the Republican Party - they are why Mr. Boehner cannot control the Tea Party faction. Back in the day, the Speaker controlled the party's purse strings, and he doled out campaign cash to whom he saw fit. Now, Congresscritters can chase their own millionaires and raise their own cash, and they don't NEED the speaker or party money.

Category 2 is composed of the right wings's officeholders and lobbyists. Why they support Republicans is also obvious. These people have a very important job to do. They are charged with creating divisions among the rest of the population, and getting as many of the category 3 people to support their side as they can.

So who is category 3? They are people with VERY strong feelings about ONE issue or another, that overrides all other interests, and the party that supports their feeling on their issue will always get their vote. They are the "Guns, God & Gays" voters that Obama almost got crucified over for describing that way in 2008.

Most blame this situation on Reagan, but it goes back much further, really. The wealthy hated the New Deal, and needed SOMETHING to get at least some of the people who were benefiting from it to hate it, too. Their answer was found in one Billy Graham, who essentially forever conflated Capitalism and Christianity in many a feeble mind. Thus, the Gospel of Prosperity was born, and still thrives today. Similar tactics are used to win over the gun nuts and bigots/haters of all stripes (anti-gay, anti-darker skin, anti-Jew, anti-science, etc.) but somehow those issues just don't seem to draw as many to the dark side as religion does.

And that, children, is why so many believe that Jesus came riding his Brontosaurus, to deliver the Constitution to the founding fathers. AMEN!

I live close to the Southern border with Mexico and have known very little about Canada. As of late, I have been falling in love with Canada since I have discovered "Murdoch Mysteries", an excellent Canadian TV program that beats the crap out of many many US shows.

Now in my enjoyment of Canada has been many hits to the search button learning more and more. My earlier impressions were of the language wars, wheat in the middle, a nice worlds fair tower and cold as hell with very few people. Well, thank you Murdoch mysteries for the stimulation to learn more about a very good neighbor.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091909/

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

Plus some very attractive Canadian women actors where the only part of the body that is visible is the face. (Time line is the 1890'

Tatiana Maslany ( whose name I clearly can't spell!)

while the religious were free to drop mentions of god, prayer, Jesus, etc. into conversations and have everyone nod along in deference. The Internet has revealed to a lot of faith-believers that not everyone is sympathetic to beliefs not based on evidence or reason. A lot of the religious are shocked that they don't have a monopoly on the conversation anymore and they don't like it. Not one bit.

We allowed religion, commerce and politics to fuse together...in a most pathetic and shallow way. Now it is a real embarrassment to know how many charlatans run around this country making millions off of the voters ignorance and inherent bigotry.

Canada never did that and is spared the humiliation America suffers when the rest of the world looks at us.

commerce and politics are becoming more entwined every day. Sorry about the dirty oil, guys. Most Canadians don't like it either.

Then they decided that their religion was the right one, and gave others trouble.
Some stuff like adultery, drinking, dancing, and a bunch of other stuff was not pleasing to god, so they banned it in their churches. In spite of nobody religious signing the Constitution, it was "under God" as if somebody had an inkling of who or what god was.

Churches burned witches, church groups formed political parties, and politicians courted church groups to get votes. Clergyman and parents warned their children to conform or go to hell. And politicians still must confess to having some religion if they want to get elected.

Not a pretty story, but the more reading one does, the better chance of escaping religion. But not if all you read is "religious."

Not a good answer for you. If you find one, let me know.

my feeling is that there has always been a conflict in the US between the would be theocrats who want to establish a religious society and the enlightenment types who wrote the Constitution.

Some of the English colonies were established by people who wanted to establish their own religious colony/colonies in opposition to the Church of England.

Plus religion was used by many in the US as a justification for slavery. Another thing Canadians never suffered from.

But when Pauline Marois was Prime Minister in Quebec, for such a short time, she tried to use religion as a distraction by pushing for a ban on religious expression/symbols.

Quebec is a unique part of the country and lots of things that are true of Canadians in general don't hold true there. Example - Canadians are so polite! Quebecois? Not so much.
Maybe it has something to do with both Quebec and the U.S. being founded by people of a single faith. Then it would matter more and also disappear as a given that nobody questions. When, as commenters observed, there is a perceived threat from outside, co-religionists hunker down and start demonizing "the other".
Thoughts anyone?

I was going to say something rude, but that would be proof of your assertion about "rude" Quebecois/Quebecoises. (A joke) And yes, we have all heard the "rude" comment before, often from Anglophones who cannot take the time to learn French, even Anglophones who have lived in the province for many years. I think that part of the language conflict that started in the 1960s was based on a fear that English would replace French as the dominant language. Law 101 was a response to that fear, but it was seen by some Anglophones as an attack on them.

But I do not know you and am not taking offense. We can be, I would not say rude, perhaps clannish. Or insular?

Yes, Quebec was founded by francophones, and is overwhelmingly still francophone, but there are many immigrants in all of Canada. But religion is not so much of a factor in Quebec anymore. Pauline Marois is an open atheist but faced no real opposition because of her beliefs. Part of the Quiet Revolution was a response to the heavy role played by the Catholic Church in the province.

I also agree with your next response about the relations between First Peoples and the rest of Canada. Treatment of First Peoples was bad all the way into the 1970s, with discrimination centered around language one aspect. My father's mother was full blood Cree, as are many of my relatives. I never heard her speak anything but French, and the same for the cousins. Speaking the language was discouraged.

with religion, but we sure did use our churches to try to break the spirit of our aboriginal people. But that's a whole other discussion..