That this is true was very apparent to the country's founders. They also knew that to whittle away at a secular government is to whittle away at the core of the principles on which ours was founded.

or secular and non-religious.

Secularism is a term that excludes religion but that doesn't mean it excludes religious people.

I feel that is something we could all support.

The only difference, which can be nominal, is the belief or lack of belief in god.

We on DU have a lot more in common than we have differences.

And most of the religiously affiliated on DU are also secularists.

I think we are seeing and will continue to see a growing number of "interfaith" groups among the young that include believers, non-believers and all kinds of people in between. I think we will much less of a we vs. them mentality.

And that's a very good thing, imo.

illustrates what we do politically or who and what we support.
I would hazard to guess that very few on DU support the kind of religious intrusion that non-believers are upset about (believers here are most likely upset too.)

Just because we are at odds on this particular board doesn't mean we are not like minded in general.

This is a discussion forum for one particular subject, not a referendum on our total politics and ideas.

Would it serve the overall purpose and mission of the board to use this group to find out where groups that differ on religion may overlap in the ven diagram or to continue to fight about who is right and who is wrong?

Just because it's a group about religion, does that mean that it can not serve the purpose of finding ways for disparate groups to better understand each other and work together?

Progressive actions being taken by religious and secular groups that I for one support.
But they usually don't get the responses the contenscious threads do.

I sometimes have contentious discussions here, but they are generally civil and very often end on a positive note where we either agree to disagree or find a point on which we can agree. I tend to get into the most contentious discussions when I run into clear anti-theists or anti-atheists. I think they are divisive and undermine the goals of the site.

The threads that get the most play seem to be the ones where people get more dug into their positions and unable to seek common ground and the ones where people are determined to be right, even when there is no right answer.

The question of whether there is a god or not, whether Jesus actually existed, whether specific things in the bible are literal or not are debates that are completely unresolvable, imo, and not worth the time it takes to type a response.

and very recently on this board. Why are you trying to dredge it up again, as if that never happened? You know perfectly well how to find the commonalities that you say you want.

A stab at parlaying that into a Religion Group discussion.

I am here for an intellectual discussion about religion and beliefs.
I use the other forums for what you are ta;king about.
Sorry if that doesn't correspond with what others would like, but then they don't have to join in on those threads they find contenscious.

To counter that from a secular and yes, political, approach that all along the range of religious points of view we have a counter voice. Their extremism has to be addressed. I'm not thrilled with the intersection of religion and politics, yet it is what it is. The faith based liberal left has to speak up. And if need be, speak from a faith based point of view.

It's happened before. Civil rights, VietNam are two clear instances.

that is something progressives should work for. But heavy debate about religious subjects on this board won't prevent it, and I'm not sure this is the best place for it.
If all we do is talk about common political ground in the religious sphere, doesn't that prevent the intellectual exercise of a no holds bar religion debate?

There is.

means without regards to religion. By that def. there is no reason why we can't get along.

As for common ground, of course we can find that.....so long as it has nothing to do w/ religion. On religious issues we are diametrically opposed.

divided by one simple thing - a belief or disbelief? Plus there are all those people in the grey areas that really don't identify with either... or go back and forth between the two... or may hold a definition of "belief" that doesn't really jibe with other people's definition of it.

Is it not possible to say, I stand here, but I think where you stand may be equally possible.

The idea that there are just two groups and they are diametrically opposed may be a part of the problem.

I said religion instead theism and non-theism as mentioned in the OP. As usual, I am using the oxford dictionary definition of belief and disbelief which leaves no middle. Of course, people will use their own definitions.

Equally possible? Yes, but it does depend on how narrow or broadly you are speaking. However, this is a case where only one can be true.

When it comes to religion it really depends on the religion in question, and sometimes the individual beliefs. There is no room for common ground between people who believe that one's body is their own, and those who believe that something like pregnancy can negate that right.

Sometimes, there are irreconcilable differences between groups. Ignoring that is to deny what makes those groups who they are. In a way, it is like the difference between multi-culturalism and assimilation. Trying to pretend those differences don't exist and trying to force everyone to be alike can only cause resentment.

There are plenty of places people can come together, especially when both people are progressives. But sometimes you just have to agree to disagree, and move on to another subject. The more time I spend here on these forums, the more I feel that many disagreements are due to people just not accepting a difference of opinion.

I don't see how acknowledging that we are different is a problem. In fact, I would say the opposite is a major problem. Refusing to accept those differences and trying to make everyone agree is counter productive.

That's a common foundation for civil discourse. Not always easy, for sure. One possible common ground in belief / disbelief is "How does that POV inform your day to day decisions? How does it inform your political decisions? What does it mean to you?" And similar open-ended discussions. I'd wager the range of opinion would be interesting.

which is or isn't. So what's the point of taking a hard position? It makes more sense to me to just acknowledge that I/you might be right and I/you might be wrong, and what difference does it make?

We are absolutely on the same page when it comes to how an individual's beliefs/lack of beliefs colors or even dictates their world views. Acknowledging that there are differences, as in you excellent comparison to multiculturalism, is key. But saying that those differences are by their very existence a threat to me is bigotry. At least when it comes down to general differences between theism and atheism.

Agreeing to disagree is Solomonic. We should all use it more frequently, particularly when it comes to issues for which there is really no right answer.

So, I agree that acknowledging there are differences is cool and insisting that everyone must see it the same way is clearly not.

and perhaps the role of religion in a secular society.

I am an atheist. I have many friends that are not. I even go to a church that is atheist/theist inclusive (uu church). We may explain how we come by our sense of morality differently but we have a mostly shared sense of right and wrong. Our sense of connection to one another may be explained differently but we all feel the same sense of connection. We laugh we cry we sing we dance. Far more in common than not. In fact the only time trouble typically arises has little to do with water one believes in God's or not. The real dividernin society is whether you take your doctrine as being dogmatic. If you do not allow your beliefs to be questioned... Well that is where the troubles start. As long as we are open and honest with one another a difference in beliefs is the spice of life. When we shut down questioning and doubt it becomes an anathema to life.

"As long as we are open and honest with one another a difference in beliefs is the spice of life. When we shut down questioning and doubt it becomes an anathema to life."

I think doubt is vital for some reason. LOL, I think I drove my parents up the wall with a repeated, "Why?".