from the thread in Interfaith. Since most of what they did in response was to start a meta thread bashing atheists and boasting about how many they had on ignore. Only two or three people responded directly to your post.

Oh, and if you want to send a suggestion to the religionists about how they can communicate more honestly, here it is..be honest. Stop making things up about what other people have said. Stop putting words in people's mouths, and instead let their own words speak for themselves. Stop dodging and dancing. Give direct responses to direct questions. Stop upbraiding people for doing things that you do yourself.

Oh, wait, you won't see this.

what could you personally do to make things better?

And, when I showed by actual quotation that I had written truly, literally laughed it off.

Scott gives excellent advice. Too bad he doesn't live by it himself.

As I was complaining about his hypocrisy. I brought up his slander because it exemplified his hypocrisy.

Slander is spoken.

Link to support your claim?

Found at http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/118-religion-39-s-real-child-abuse

And I owe scott an apology. It was Trotsky who laughed it off, not him. I'm sorry I slandered him.

In it, he has a case of a skywriter who writes something which is both untrue and defamatory. Is it libel -- because it is written -- or is it slander -- because it is temporary, like the spoken word. The skywriter's lawyer successfully argues that it must be one or the other (it cannot be both) and it is clear that whichever one the plaintiff chooses, the defendant's lawyer is going to argue it is the other. So the suit is dropped.

And as I pointed out, even people who despise me like okasha and Starboard Tack agreed with me - that elements of religion like teaching them about eternal punishment in hell is indeed child abuse.

Clearly, you did not read the source I cited in my last post, because if you had, you would not make the false claim that I fabricated a quote. You will probably report me on this, but I have to say that I have come to expect dishonesty from you, and once again, you do not fail my expectation.

Your apology for falsely calling me a liar should be forthcoming, but I do not expect you will be honest enough to make it.

Anyone can go back and read the history, where you finally admitted you paraphrased (i.e., made up your own quote).

Let's keep this kicked so you can embarrass yourself even more, and expose your dishonesty for a new round of DUers.

that you have linked to a Dawkins article but haven't linked to your post in question. Why don't you do that so that everyone can see just how much you were "wronged."

Can you link your initial claim/quote and cite the paragraph in this material you just linked?

Clearly the entire story is not on the table at the moment, or I wouldn't have to ask.

that you never come out of this discussion looking good. Really. Just drop this and let it go. I have no idea why you continue to bring this up all the time when all that happens is it gets shown that you fabricated a Dawkins quotation.

And apparently you weren't very happy keeping all those people on ignore:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1264&pid=2875

When you stop rolling around the floor you may want to check your posts.

It is YOU who don't want to admit that Dawkins said that raising a child to be a Catholic is worse than child abuse. I don't know why you refuse to admit the truth, that is your problem, not mine.

Are you man enough to apologize for slandering me? Or is that too much to expect? (Silly question.)

Love it love it love it that you refuse to let this quietly pass, but continue to try and revise history to cover up your dishonesty.

Keep it going. PLEASE!

(In before the shitstorm)

I just don't think it will lead to an improvement in relations.

Saying "in before the shitstorm" and posting a popcorn eating smiley says something, but I'm not sure what it is.

There is an opportunity here for two groups to recognize that what they really want is the same thing - to be treated fairly, civilly and with a modicum of respect. There is a chance for at least a detente.

I am left to conclude that you either have no interest in that or feel that it's absolutely impossible.

Overall, I am really disappointed in your response.

Interfaith: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12642847
A&A: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1230&pid=23316

...and similar to the "best interpretation" that has seemed clear to me on occasion.

I hope that it generates more light than heat.

interestedly,
Bright

Both sides have legit grievences and we should take this to heart personally. We should remember that others have feelings and while it may get to become habit to just argue we should go gently.

This is an open forum that allows all views on the topic of belief and non-belief. All are welcome and all topics are subject to debate.

Those of us who post regularly in this group have our grievences. I posted mine in the post in interfaith that was referenced above.

We need to also remember and I remind myself to hear this that others likely have legit issues with things each of us have posted in the past.

In the religion forum, a non-safe haven open to the discussion of all aspects of religious belief, including non-belief, non believers cannot fully participate in that forum if they are not permitted to express their non-belief, which, as noted, means that many of us think your religious beliefs are not believable. You have another forum, the interfaith forum, where we are not permitted to express the obvious implications of our non belief. If you are troubled by having your beliefs challenged, I suggest trashing this forum. You are of course welcome to challenge my non belief as much as you want. Go ahead. Convince me.

if you posted "I think your beliefs are fairy tales, and here's why..." versus "I think your beliefs are mistaken, and here's why..."? Would both phrasings fall under the category of challenging religious belief or expressions of non-belief?

Is Hansel and Gretel "mistaken"?

I can't. Nor is it relevant. It is a fairy tale.

It might be as meaningless to you as a fairy tale, just an idle story that we tell children, but that does not reflect the experience of others. Whether the story is factual or not, the impact of it on those others is real. Wouldn't believers you were talking to appreciate it if that were recognized in the way you describe their beliefs?

"Yes, I know this is a myth/fairy tale/made up story, but believing it makes me feel better", fine and dandy. But very few religionists are that honest about it, with themselves or others.

I don't do it just for the hell of it.

A totally reasonable and legitimate desire, but it's a process, and if everyone waits for someone else to step up, nobody will step up.

I don't tell them being an atheist is wrong.

Perhaps then it's time to simply agree to disagree.

So I decided to put three on ignore because it was pointless and would have led to hidden posts for me and them. Another I felt was just dishonest and I got sick of the posters believers are delusional and mentally ill stick. And the last because all the poster did was insult me.

So for me I needed space.

Better than continually going round and round, that's for sure.

How are you winning by giving it to them?

Since I used ignore the issues have lessened greatly.

It is a shame because some of them were interesting to respond to at times.

Currently I am not posting oos in this room except on Christian holy days to say what the day is about. I post my ops in the interfaith room but I suspect I will post ops again here sometime this year.

I hope I'm not coming off as judgmental or self-righteous in this thread. But I'm worried that I am. The line between encouraging/persuading and hectoring is easy to cross.

people here are naturally on war footing.

It is not going to end. The fact is I mske it a point not just to post in this room or on the topic of religion.

I try to diversify my experience on this site.

You may choose to identify with, cheer on, and believe in the Rangers, but that doesn't mean 'The Rangers Suck' can be construed to mean 'You suck'.

I see an awful lot of people taking criticism of ideas they may hold, to be personal criticism, when it is not.

I make a distinction between religion -- a cohesive body of legend, tradition, and moral prescriptions -- and the people who, nominally, identify with it. Just because I don't care for, say Catholicism, as an ideology, doesn't mean I don't care for individual Catholics.

But that's how things are often construed here.

And it would be wonderful if people understood the distinction.

I was called a soft theocrat the other day here.

This is why I use ignore in this room.

There's usually a reason for it, or a jury takes care of it, if totally unwarranted.

construed as such, whether you meant it that way or not?

I ripped into someone yesterday for sounding like a libertarian in the other top thread in this folder. I was wrong. I was unclear, and caused that poster to question my motives in a manner that happened to also sound like a libertarian. (Civil libertarians can exist here, but the ones who refuse to pay taxes are generally not the sort welcome at DU)

In that light, could, on whatever the issue at hand was, someone have reasonably interpreted your post/s as being soft theocracy advocacy?

No I did not deserve it.

There is a million dollar+ church 2 blocks from my house.

It consumes the following city services:

1. Rainwater runoff storage and mitigation for impermeable surfaces.
2. Road access/maintenance (some construction performed by the city 2 months ago, in fact)
3. Police access/service.
4. Emergency medical service. (tapped last year when someone had a heart-attack on site)

and more.

These services are paid for via local property taxes. (Our property taxes here are structured part state, part local municipality)


The Church's 'tax exempt' status actually gives it immunity to all of those taxes. Meaning, I am being forced to pay taxes to support that church.

When this nation was founded, there were a couple of the original colonies/first states that actually explicitly forced people to pay taxes that supported local churches. This was found to be unconstitutional over the next 30-ish years, for reasons you can probably imagine. Leaving the church tax exempt, while it CONSUMES these services (they are not free) is an end-run around that explicit taxation/support issue.

Without more context of that thread, I can see why someone might call a person who supports the tax exempt nature of a church a 'soft theocrat' because in supporting that status, one is implicitly approving of taxes upon the people to support churches.

I don't think that's unfair for someone to state, but I can understand if you object, and would like to see the reasons/watch the argument play out.

my point was the argument turned into name calling and snark which happens a lot here.

It's not a lot, but the principle is being violated never the less.

State taxation to support a church is one bright line hallmark of a theocracy. I agree with the modifier 'soft' because it is non-specific, most churches qualify. But it is still a state imposed tax to contribute to materials/services consumed by churches.

I don't think 'soft theocrat' is an outrageous interpretation of that position.

Why do you disagree?

Can you also understand the amount of offense I feel at being forced to pay taxes that support religious institutions?

If we live in the same county, I pay for a share of the resources I enumerated earlier (and more) that the church consumes and does not pay for.

It is possible *I* do not pay anything for *your* specific church, but your position supports a condition wherein I am *most certainly* paying for services consumed by local churches.

So it doesn't really matter that no dollars leave my wallet and go to your church, the position means dollars leave my wallet and go to local churches.

However, I am nothing if not consistent, and I oppose those as well.

In my view, non-profit entities shouldn't be forcing people to contribute to their operational costs. Religious or otherwise. But this forum is the religion forum, and there is a bright line prohibition for such entities in our government, for a fully justifiable historical reason, as I indicated earlier.

This power was once abused to support churches directly.

this doesn't resolve anything, as I am still forced to pay taxes that fund churches operational costs, and you still oppose removing that exemption.

In other words, I am being aggressed against, and you support that aggression.

I am not one to table such issues.

I am sorry but I can n8t support removing that.

reasonably infer as supporting government funding of churches.

I can understand why you might object to 'soft theocracy' here, but I can think of only limited ways to describe that condition, and I am afraid none of them could be considered flattering.

I am sorry but we disagree.

I do not like paying taxes to (slightly) help support local churches; but there are other things that I dislike paying for. I'm more upset about the amount of my taxes that has gone to supporting illegal wars than churches. And I don't consider that my country has become totalitarian, or undergone a military coup, because of even the latter.

What I consider as theocratic is the imposition of laws based on moral rules specific to certain religions. I might use the term 'soft theocracy' to refer to a country that has such rules only to some extent in certain areas. I might for example use it to refer to certain states of the USA that have draconian abortion laws and require creationism to be given equal status with evolution, even though they are still not 'hard theocracies' like e.g. Saudi Arabia.

I don't think that anyone currently on this forum is even a soft theocrat, in the sense of actually wishing to ban abortion or same-sex marriage or restrict the teaching of evolution. Where I get into disagreements with some members of the forum, is on the extent to which employees should be able to claim a 'conscience clause' for refusing to carry out certain duties. If this is in a situation where someone else can easily take over the function, then it's generally not a problem. But I do think that access to contraception, in particular, is such a fundamental human right that people's right to use it should trump pharmacists' right to refuse it.

But the topic of this forum is not war.

This nation has plenty of religiously-inspired or mandated rules that have found their way into law. We are slowly losing the abortion access battle across much of the nation. Physician assisted suicide is still only legal in 3 states. Hell, I can't buy hard alcohol on Sunday still in 12 states.

Some of it is big, important stuff, some of it is piddly stuff. And you're right, you don't necessarily run into it daily. But it's there. That, I think is why it was described as 'soft theocracy', or cheering/apologizing for it.

brought up war as a differentiation issue, not as a religious point.

"I do not like paying taxes to (slightly) help support local churches; but there are other things that I dislike paying for. I'm more upset about the amount of my taxes that has gone to supporting illegal wars than churches."


Not paying taxes to support war is an issue for another forum, unless also rooted in conscientious religious objection (an unfair privilege, when invoked, if conscientious objection of non-religious nature is not given equal weight.) which that poster did not raise as an issue.

War is most certainly a religious issue for many.

If he or she had, then I would have responded very differently.

I would have called it a 'distraction', but I didn't want to imply the associated negative connotation.

However, I did not notice where the other poster referred to it as a "differentiation issue", either.

My point here, however, is that war is most certainly a religious issue.

War is most certainly against my religion. And i'm an atheist.

Philosophical mechanisms such as the non-aggression principle leave me incapable of supporting anything but a war in self-defense when other options are exhausted.

If your post to me was not an objection to my reply to the other poster, then it makes no sense. I don't go around taking other people's posts in a vacuum, and replying to them as if they are statements without context.

where the word "religion" was meaningless.

suck. But if that was the worst insult I received in my life... I'd be pretty pleased with myself.

(I don't consider you either soft or a theocrat.)

pattern of baiting and attempts to provoke an alertable post. Justin's restraint has been admirable.

how the religious rooms work. I've read them for years (and i participate in spurts).

I understand his frustration and feel it. He's a very kind and earnest man who answers most posts written to him and, in return, gets baited into arguments ad infinitim. It sucks.

I think ignore is good for his sanity.

That would seem to be a closer parallel.

I would view that parallel to be the clergy/etc, compared to team members. I would probably choose to stick to the 'team fan'/'believer' model.

Maybe meet you halfway, and choose a fan REALLY invested in the rangers, like a season ticket holder in the box section?

STANLEY CUP!

"I don't tell them being an atheist is wrong."

Go right ahead.

You don't seem to understand what a fairy tale or a myth is. When you come up with an example of an atheist fairy tale, please do let me know.

A trilogy by Phillip Pullman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Dark_Materials
You won't like it much though, it makes fun of god.