Percentage-wise, anyhow.

Always intrigued by that.

I have wondered why they have been repeatedly persecuted historically. One possible reason is because there seems to be a disproportionate level of success/wealth among Jewish people so jealousy becomes a factor. Not sure if that was the case historically, but it seems to apply today.

Contrast that with Islam: 1.7 Billion people with hardly any Nobel prizes, and those few mostly Literature and Peace at that.

Both Semitic people too.

Also shocked by how small the Jewish share of the chart looks.
Why are they so hated?

Just ask any Chump supporter...

It would make for a kinder more peaceful world.

is it is very hard to become Jewish if you aren't born to a Jewish woman.

The reform Jews are a lot more laid back.
You go through the motions, take a Mikva and you are good.

don’t really care about religious training for their children.
This is just a personal observation. New York Jews seem to have been cultural Jews who need their lox and bagels on Sunday morning and not needed to go to shul on Saturday. Many came from socialist backgrounds that had very little in terms of religious drive.

I think that as long as religion is not a requirement for life, we have a decent chance to progress to a free future.
If the world goes to sharia law and forced catholic doctrine then we are fucked.

They meet any news of large numbers of nonbelievers with dismissive responses and remind everyone that believers are still a majority and will likely outbreed us.

Funny thing though, they've been "outbreeding" us this whole time. Doesn't seem to have been working all that well.

Forced Catholic doctrine and Sharia Law in one sentence. Are you writing a dystopian novel, or is this your opinion?

I have only this snapshot view. Nones also include adults who make that choice and were formerly religious. We shall see.

and Jews are old sticks in the mud.

Fascinating.
Intriguing that both would like to exterminate the originating religion.

I don't know if Muslims have gotten worse, gotten better, or remained about the same over time.

The founding of Israel really pissed them off. Jewish communities that existed for 2000 years in Muslim countries were forced to leave and move to Israel, which was a really stupid move.

During the conquest of Arabia, Mohammed sought the favor of the Jews to bolster his image as a man of the people. There are maybe a few passages in the Qur'ān imploring Muslims to treat the Jews well because they are "people of the book".

That all went out the window with the founding of Israel.

Gives some hope for the future.

"Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment; Cleverness is mere opinion, bewilderment intuition." Rumi - (Islam)

Did you reply to the wrong thread?

You also stated you wanted to hear from other religions besides just the one that draws the most ire.

Do you take issue with the percentages in the image? I didn't paste any text from that link.

and you sourced it.

And, I recognize any other material or links there are not what you are promoting or referencing (not a courtesy afforded myself, by the way ).

But you said you wanted to discuss other religions in this same OP, and I noticed that your link cited quotes from other religions, in the same vein as what we discuss all the time.

1 out of 10 are not affiliated with a religion? And a declining number? Same discussion, new day.

I also posted Pew Research data. My point was that this group is usually focused just on Christianity, which is a minority religion, worldwide. It is followed by less than a third of the global population.

and how most religions share universal commonalities.

Abrahamic religions are closer to two thirds of the religious global population, and at least 84% of the world adheres to religious belief.

I don't understand how it is productive to dismiss the beliefs of 84% of the world. Especiailly in light of all the unmentioned good that comes as a result.

As for the "unmentioned good," the bad is also unmentioned in this thread. The thread is clearly about percentages of the population. It is merely about data.

I'm making no argument in this thread, except to note that there are major religions that are not discussed often in this forum. I suggested that we discuss them more often.

I do not dismiss any one's beliefs. I simply do not share them. I often argue that belief in deities without evidence of their existence is illogical. I will continue to make that argument in the Religion Group, I assure you, regardless of the deities being mentioned. This thread, however, contains no such argument or dismissal.

Your reply was a non sequitur, and lacked any explanation of why it was made.

The same tired memes, but presented with a very colorful graphic.

the heart plays a role.

"I know" is not just an intellectual function.

that you posting a link to that site is equivalent to him posting a link to a right-wing hate site,

I posted nothing from that site, except a chart. Frankly, I didn't even look at the site. I found the chart through a Google Image search, and provided the link to the site to document the source. Later in the thread, I found another pair of charts from Pew Research and posted them, along with a link.

The data presented in both sets of charts is accurate. It has no message, other than presenting the data.

I did find the text that was quoted in the reply. It was on that website, connected with a passage from Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. The person making the reply used a different quote in connection with the text quoted from that site. I still don't see what connection that has to my original post, frankly.

It doesn't matter, really. The population/religion data is what it is.

Here is the link to MM's referenced site.

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/index.html

You don't afford me the same courtesy.

Oh, yes, it is.

https://www.alwaysbeready.com/charlie-campbell

Check out this page on his site:

https://www.alwaysbeready.com/homosexuality

So is Answers in Genesis, a site closely aligned with Charlie Campbell

https://answersingenesis.org/

And here's a page from that site:

https://answersingenesis.org/family/gender/transgender-identity-wishing-away-gods-design/

There are your courtesy links.

'Cause an awful lot of Democrats would consider that to be news.

These are Democrats who support liberal causes, who don't impose their personal values on all of society, who are right there with women's right to choose, same-sex marriage, LGBTQ+ rights and equality, abolitionism and civil rights, and charity as a tenet of their beliefs.

You don't support the material posted at YOUR cited source. You want only your copy-and-paste referenced.

That's all I wanted.

that promote hatred?

The Bible has been used to justify hate in the past, along with slavery, war, and other negative actions. In itself, it is not a hate document, but it contains material that has often been used, and that is still used today to justify hatred. Some Christians promote hatred and intolerance, and some of those have websites that do the same.

As I posted in a different post recently, all of my Christian friends are people who promote peace and tolerance. Frankly, I don't associate with anyone who doesn't promote those things. I do know some, however, who promote hatred and intolerances and who identify as Christians. They are not my friends.

Here's that post:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218268849

Can't discuss the topic, so deflection into something he admits isn't true.

Arguments in defense of the rational viability of faith are not something I disagree with.

But you go on telling me what I think and say.

But you are still deflecting from the topic.

Defending YOUR personal belief's doesn't mean you want to impose those beliefs on anyone else or on society in general.

That would be a 'rightwing hate site' and I don't see any watchdog organizations listing any of these Christian websites as such.

Another thing we Democrats like to promote? Freedom of speech.

Now, let's stop trying to shut each other up - and discuss what we have to say.

Not you, not Charlie H. Campbell and his right-wing hate site, not anyone else. you're lying yet again.

Frankly, yallerdawg, you don't make Christianity seem very palatable. You appear to be paranoid, evasive, dishonest, disrespectful, hypocritical, and rude. I suppose this is what a relationship with Jesus produces. Frankly, it isn't very impressive.

They're on the record, under recent 'self deleted OP's' since I was being stalked.

I'm pretty sure your very personal attacks on me are violations of DU policy, but I don't play that game, and our 'group' monitors seem to make it a no-call.

It is very possible that you misunderstand what I write and where I stand, and you may just have deep justifiable resentment against any kind of religious support. In my opinion. you can say whatever you want. I won't stop you!

I consider this Religion Group to be a rather open, no-holds-barred, free-for-all since all opinions are welcomed, and until y'all change that - shut me up - then we shall go on!

But - our 'conversation' ends when you call me liar.

doesn't it seem likely that anyone defending Bible-based Christianity is citing a 'rightwing hate source?'

That's a real conversation-killer!

There are many interpretations of the Bible. Some of them are vile and bigoted. Some of them aren’t.

Your attempts to frame people here as attacking all Christians as rightwing bigots is dishonest and deliberate.

I have been framed as linking to a rather common type of Christian website and been told it's a 'rightwing hate group.'

Didn't you all point out that not one single mega-church has any LGBTQ guidance?

That's not "framing," but I am?

to a right wing Christian hate site.

and told to delete.

It's in the threads.

And it has happened more than once. But standards are subjective.

I go to SPLC and internet monitoring sites to identify 'rightwing hate sites.'

It can't just be people saying things I don't like.

exclusively negative.

Eris.

So much winning right now.

Ha.

Fnord!