threats of death to the infidels, eternal hell if u dont love Jesus, fatwas, riots, mob rule, and all those other favorites of the believers of various sorts.
If you can't bake a cake for gays (sinners) you shouldn't be baking cakes for adulterers (10 commandment violators) either

for divorced people who are remarrying. Christ made it very clear that most divorced people who remarry are adulterers.

And now you "define" Christian belief with this..

First, most people have found ways around the most restrictive of the doctrines from the early church, or at least those interpretations. It pays not to impose your own interpretation of a holy book on others and then accuse them of hypocrisy when they don't meet the standard you have for them but not for yourself.

Second, if a man and women are about to get married after one or both got a divorce, they are (a) not likely to be focused on prior divorces when discussing buying a cake, (b) they are not likely to stay in a place of business if the owner pries into their former marriages and tries to pronounce judgment on whether their divorce was justified or not, (c) as far as any outside observer is concerned they may never have married before, may have divorced for just cause, may have had a spouse die. hat whole sitting in judgment thing's a bit of a problem. However, if two women or two men are getting a wedding cake for their nuptials, that's pretty clearly not the traditional "one man and one woman" and so the judgment as to the propriety of the event is a lot easier to make.

Here's a test: What would happen if that baker of infamy were to be confronted with one man and two women getting married, "Happy Wedding Jake and Jane and Julie!" or "On your wedding day, Jake and John and Jane!" with a little trio instead of the couple in plastic effigy on the cake.

But if one claims to desire dialogue, insulting 85% of the population seems a bit counterintuitive to that expressed desire.

SHould All Discussions on Christianity be Civil and Respectful?

There is a convention among different churches today, that other churches with different doctrines should not be attacked verbally. Out if Christian charity and solidarity. Suggesting that all are partly good; Christian. But? According to (informal?) theories of" privilege," often unjust regimes impose silence, as a form of preserving their unjust power, authority.

I argue that tbe censorship of a critical or even objective views of certain favored values, especially religious values, makes a true objective, academic examination of religions impossible.

Religious censorship is often presented as politeness, or tolerance. But as it turns out, it is tolerance of only a narrow range of beliefs.

As it turns out, often things tolerated are not finally, as good, fruitful, as churches have proudly proclaimed.

There is a difference. It is name calling and a broad brush attack on the concept of theism and the believers.

Calling religion" delusional," or "psychotic," is in effect just short for Freud's "all religion is delusional."

I am certain that we can all carefully choose which opinions to believe that just happen to conform to our own beliefs.

... the reluctance to criticize it, even when massive amounts of evidence warrants, may well ultimately destroy this blog and it's irreplaceable value. And replace it with an all too conventional priestly reticence and enforced silence.

All in the name of "politeness" and "consideration." Which for 2,000 years have served, enabled, deified - and in biblical language, "whitewashed"- the corrupt status quo of murderous Christianity.

Consider your answer to be conclusively refuted.

What the Atheists object to is some few having the effrontery to disagree with them.

It is not at all an equal standard.

That's offensive, I think. Perhaps you do not think so.

So far, no one has admitted the obvious, that the remarks are a group attack. Instead, we can read opinions that "it is not done" but no comments about what was actually said.

Anyone can read and link to any posts in any group. We both know this.

I generally lurk on the various threads, including the ones on religion, but every now and again I try to contribute my two cents.

I'm wondering it you'd be willing to look at my post here, #94, and tell me what you think.

As I say in the post, I'm agnostic (even if there is a God, I very much doubt She/He/It gives a damn whether or not I personally believe) but I see religion as an important part of many people's lives, and think there are ways progressives surrender a powerful force for good when we diss all religions and all religious people.

Like I say, just my two cents.

Best wishes.

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven."

Why aren't you rejoicing and being glad? Did Jesus change his mind about this, too?

against people who were using religion for profit.

Seems that's very specific.

He also murdered pigs and fig trees should we also? If so, don't come to my farm.

he sure did do a lot of "specific" things.

The idea of holy space or time makes little sense these days, though, so some justification must be found.

It's been pointed out that there were two thriving businesses because of the temple. The first was the sale of livestock; the sacrificial system was quite bloody and expensive. The second was the requirement that the poll tax be paid in the right currency, which a lot of people wouldn't have need of since much trade was done by weight of silver and gold, not by necessarily using the right coin. But if you come from some other area, you wouldn't have the right currency and the temple didn't give change, hence money changers. They may have been corrupt, but they all were and nobody had to use the ones at the Temple; some of the corruption was a convenience charge, no doubt.

I would love to know how you do excuse it.

I'm very curious about your reaction to it. Why does a Christian completely ignore Jesus's very clear teaching on the subject? Christians aren't supposed to feel offended and insulted by such language. Jesus said Christians are to rejoice and be glad about it. Why aren't you rejoicing and being glad? Why aren't you doing to others as you would have them do to you? If Jesus's message is so meaningless to you, why do you claim to be a Christian?

but you refuse to address it when it is evidenced on one particular side of the debate. Why is that?

from Atheists and people who profess to have no faith at all.

Following this "logic" the Pope should be an Atheist since this is the only way anyone would hear the truth?

There it is again - this insistence on defining the beliefs of others.

Neither better than the other

But is dialogue really possible if some feel that theists are psychotic or imbeciles?

He shook his head and walked away when I brought up Matthew 25.

The more I try to be nonjudgemental, the more I see both sides being unreasonable.

but that's just me

Here on DU.

"Rug" and others argued adamantly against it. But I quoted dozens of clinical psychologists in support. Including Freud himself. Who said "all religion is delusion."

Are we allowed to quote scholars and psychologists in critiquing religion?

And linked to 2 of many such examples of attacking theists as delusional and worse. What does this type of name calling and hateful speech have to do with actual dialogue?

That's normally frowned upon here on DU. Perhaps you should edit your OP to remove that link, eh?

As in prohibited?

If anyone feels the need to characterize Catholics as overly sensitive imbeciles that reveals much about the poster, does it not?

What do they reveal about any desire for actual dialogue?

When a religious zealot has just murdered your family, or someone you value, as often happens, a little anger and a few bad words, even aggressive countermeasures, are often more useful than polite dialogue.

Interesting that only one person in this post actually criticized the broad brush attacks. The others have offered a variety of rationalizations but will not say what is obvious.

I would never think about criticizing his religion. He believes in his faith as strong as I don't believe it.

There is no reason for us to criticize each other's beliefs. Life is too short for that.

are substantially different from psychotic delusions.

The DSM basically just punts on it.

to describe theists.

Do you recognize that your opinions might not be correct? And if not, what does that say?

What is unavoidable is that in the discussion of religion at DU, there seems to be no desire for dialogue among some few of the non-theists.

Calling people names might be emotionally satisfying for some, and obviously is, but it is not actual discussion.

Does the DSM say anything about this tendency to broadly categorize 85% of the population?

between some religious beliefs and delusions.

What does the DSM say about such selective blindness?

Delusions are. Creationism, demonic possession, and transubstantiation are all examples of delusional beliefs exempted by the DSM because they are in the protected category of religious delusions.

Belief in cold fusion would also not be considered a delusion.

It's a manual for diagnosing mental disorders. It's not a sociological handbook to explain why people tend to believe things that other members of their culture also believe.

Also, you are using the DSM-IV definition of delusion.
The new definition is in DSM 5 which was released in 2013. According to DSM 5,

"Delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence...The distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held despite clear or reasonable contradictory evidence regarding its veracity."

Note that the definition no longer requires that the delusion actually be false, only that it be more impervious to evidence than a strongly held idea (which itself can often pretty impervious to evidence).

And DSM 5 also offers this note of caution:
An individual's cultural and religious background must be taken into account in evaluating
the possible presence of delusional disorder. The content of delusions also varies
across cultural contexts.


So you don't get a pass anymore just because everyone else believes it, but you also don't get to diagnose a delusion outside of a person's cultural context.

It exempts delusions if they are held widely enough.

Again, creationism is a great example. This is not in the realm of the unprovable, as for example the reclusive “first cause” god, it is a belief that is contrary to a mountain of evidence, it is most certainly held despite clear and contradictory evidence. It is exempt only because it is a religious belief.

And one that is dangerous and nonconstructive. I believe that I have shown you by clear and convincing evidence that your use of the psychiatric definition of delusional is incorrect. Where do we go from here? Call each other delusional?

We can disagree about looking at the DSM to find an authoritative definition of the term “delusion” without either of us being delusional.

The sort of religious beliefs in the creationist, demonic possession, transubstantiation etc category are quite different from a disagreement over the suitability of using the DSM to define a psychiatric term.

It's just not an appropriate tool to look at religious beliefs. Psychiatrists need to be able to separate religious beliefs from delusions because they need to be able to tell the difference between Obama's belief in Jesus and Trump's belief in the size of his inaugural crowd. Do you really think both those things require psychiatric treatment? Because I doubt any psychiatrist does, and the sole purpose of the DSM is to decide who needs treatment and who does not.

One of the reasons I'm generally an agnostic, as opposed to an atheist, is because there are and have been very many people, more intelligent, functional, and far more courageous than myself, who have based their lives on religious belief. President Obama is one of them, as was the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Sophie Scholl, President Jimmy Carter, Malcolm X, and many others.

The most consistent opposition to Hitler and his henchmen came from those with strong religious faith, including the French Protestants featured in the documentary "Weapons of the Spirit." The film tells the story of a single village of 5,000 farmers and peasants who provided protection for 5,000 Jews during the Holocaust, and were a major way station for refugees fleeing into Switzerland. I remember one woman who was interviewed who said that, as a Christian, she was willing "to face the machine guns" if need be.

I don't think I could ever rise to such a level of courage. The fact that their faith was such an integral part of their moral stance makes me take that faith rather seriously.

Also, for all those who quote Sigmund Freud as an authority on religion and delusion, remember that he considered the majority of women reporting histories of rape and/or incest as "hysterical." His work, while ground breaking at the time, is hardly foolproof, and his notion of which of his patients were and were not "delusional" has been the subject of much debate.

Also, consider that Albert Einstein was a theist.

Me--I can't decide, and see no reason why I should have to. I do prefer though that discussions of religion be at least minimally civil, if at all possible, though I've no doubt I've failed at times in that regard as well.

Anyway, thanks again for your excellent posts on this topic. Best wishes.

not to address that, for reasons that are purely political, and not medical.

If someone claims to hear voices in their head telling them to do things, and that they can't resist doing them, does that person need psychiatric treatment? For what medical, scientific reason is the answer "yes" if they call the voice Caligula, but "no" if they call the voice Jesus?

They do a diagnostic interview to determine if you are really hearing voices or are expressing some sort of cultural or idiosyncratic construct. They don't care what you call your construct.

that religiously based cases are never judged differently, even by psychiatrists who are hard-core religious fundamentalists?

Last edited Mon Feb 26, 2018, 03:26 PM - Edit history (2)

that there are 60 million schizophrenics in America, 95% of whom happen to be evangelical Christians who also happen to experience a 100% cure rate if they become atheists.

I have no idea if there isn't some fundamentalist psychiatrist somewhere who is misdiagnosing his religious schizophrenic patients. How would I know that it NEVER happens?

Suppose that a lot of people in this country believed that extraterrestrials were on their way to earth in a giant spaceship, and that when they arrived, all of their devotees would be taken up into the spaceship and carried off to a better world. And suppose that they gathered by the hundreds and thousands every week to sing songs to the aliens (convinced they can hear across the vastness of space) and celebrate that glorious day to come. And suppose this went on for decades. Delusional, weirdos, cultists, nuts and crackpots would probably be some of the kinder terms (whether spoken out loud or not) applied to them, by just about everyone.

But call those people Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Catholics and the space aliens “God” and “Jesus”, and all of a sudden, the same behavior is regarded, not merely as sane and normal, but wonderful. Not only is it supposed to be immune from criticism, but people who DON'T engage in it are treated as if there is something fundamentally wrong with them.

For the same reasons of social bias in favor of religiously-based delusions, the DSM will never be written to encompass them in any way.

Millions of Americans strongly believe that tax cuts for the wealthy always improve the economy. There is plenty of evidence against this. Psychiatrists do not consider this a delusion and are unlikely to ever ask about your economic beliefs.

Millions of Americans believe that Donald Trump is the legitimate President of the United States, millions of others believe he is not. They can't both be right. Psychiatrists do not investigate election returns in order to determine which half of their patients are delusional.

A large percentage of native English speakers believe that that there used to be a definite article pronounce "Ye" because they have seen quaint shops with signs like "Ye Olde Apothecary." There was never such a definite article. It is a clear fallacy based on the close resemblance of the letter "Y" to an Old English letter called "thorn" which is pronounced "th." Definite fallacy, zero evidence for it, completely wrong, easy to disprove with Dr. Google or consulting an English professor. Most psychiatrists are probably under the same "delusion" themselves, yet there is no recorded case of a psychiatrist referring himself or someone else for delusional thinking upon learning the truth.

Millions of Americans, including many liberals strongly believe in a thing called "American Exceptionalism." Although this belief has declined among liberals in recent years, it remains strong among conservatives. There is no evidence that America is all that exceptional, but there is a lot of evidence that nations at the height of their imperial powers often believe they are. Psychiatrists never inquire as to your opinion of this idea, and unless they have also have an interest in social science or history, probably never thought about it. If they did think about it, they would not call it a delusion.

There is such a thing as childhood schizophrenia (although it is rare), a symptom of which is, of course, delusions. There are also millions of children who strongly believe in the tooth fairy. But no child has ever been referred for psychiatric evaluation because they believe in the tooth fairy and no schizophrenic child has ever lost the diagnosis when they stopped believing in it.

Between in the late 1960s and early 1970's, hundreds of Americans donned strange green outfits, picked up dangerous weapons and sailed overseas to kill millions of unarmed total strangers on the strong belief that said strangers were a direct danger to themselves and their way of life. Despite their willingness to risk their own lives because of this ideas, historians generally believe this idea to be false. Despite the consensus of historians, psychiatrists do not consider those Americans to be delusional, however, many of them did come back with PTSD.

Millions of American mothers strongly believe in the false theory that if their children walk outside in winter without a jacket, they are more likely to catch a cold. Due to this false belief, they frequently become angry and tramatize their children so severely, that their children often grown up with the same false belief. Despite the obvious harm this creates to their children, the cycle continues. No psychiatrist has diagnosed a mother with delusions despite his medical knowledge of how colds are actually transmitted.

I could go on and on with example perverse to profound, stupid to sublime, but I hope you see the connection. These are all just erroneous beliefs. That's all they are. Psychiatrists aren't theologians, political scientists, sociologists, historians, philosophers, epidemiologists or in any other profession where they'd be especially qualified or interested in determining whether a belief is erroneous or not. They are only specially qualified to diagnose delusional disorders, which are not the same thing. Just because you believe (or know) that someone else believes something that is false (or stupid or whatever) doesn't mean they are delusional in the psychological sense.

And in case all those myriad examples are not enough for you to prove there is no religious exemption, and delusions don't mean erroneous beliefs, I'll leave you with this quote from DSM-5,

"Delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.
Their content may include a variety of themes (e.g., persecutory, referential, somatic, religious,, grandiose)."

just to make a point that no one was disputing, that being mistaken about random fun facts is not the same as belief in utterly impossible things defining one's whole existence.

And just because the DSM acknowledges that some delusions CAN be religious in nature doesn't in any way prove that other religiously based delusions are not still given a pass because of being widely held.

But it seems you don't know or want to know anything about psychiatry, so I think by your definition you delusional and should seek psychiatric help to cure you of this delusion. Of course, you might not think you are delusion, or you might believe there is an exception for atheistic delusions, but I understand, many delusional people don't believe they are delusional.

By the way, I am not a theist. I just don't think a 1,000 page textbook should be used to hammer theists over the head. It could cause a serious brain injury.

Oh...wait...I see what you did there! You tried to pretend that I'm delusional for thinking that people who believe that you can turn actual wine into actual blood by waving your hands and chanting over it, and will maintain that belief no matter how many tests you perform to prove that it's still wine, are delusional.

Clever doesn't even begin to describe that.

didn't happen 2,000 years ago. I am very interested in results.

And by the way, I wasn't joking.

Only reality. And we know how reality works quite well, and how it worked 2000 years ago.

But don't think I didn't notice that you avoided any smarmy claims about the "miracle" that Catholics claim happens all the time in the here and now.

Please feel free to continue your serious online clinical diagnosis of me. I'm sure such a thing is widely lauded in the psychiatric community, amirite?

And did I miss something? Did a Catholic claim to recently turn water into wine? Is this claim supposed to have an impact in my non-belief in Catholicism? Are there any other claims of things I don't believe you think I am avoiding? Because there are a lot of things I don't believe in, I just want to make sure I don't avoid any of them.

I CAN show you where you directly gave a specific individual that you've never met, never spoken to and know nothing about a medical diagnosis and medical advice. Thanks for that, btw...that was so sweet of you

And yes, you did miss something. Catholics claim to turn wine into blood every week. Not to mention bread into flesh. The water into wine thing you just made up out of thin air, for reasons of your own, apparently.

60 million is my rough estimate of how many people in the US believe the earth is 6,000 years old. You believe they are all delusional, but the psychiatric profession won't admit it because of politics.

My diagnosis of you was based on "your definition" which I believe incorrectly conflates erroneous beliefs with delusions. Since I believe your definition is erroneous, I concluded that your definition also means I should call you delusional. See the 60 million creationists you consider delusional.

Th thinge about wine into blood is my error. I incorrectly read it as water into wine, thinking you were referring to the Miracle at Canae. I apologize.

But the example you brought up is better, because it is a perfect example of a cultural construct. When a Catholic says the wine turns into real blood, they aren't saying it's chemical makeup has changed, they are saying something more like "I am a Catholic so I believe that in some mysterious way, this wine is now blood." How do we know that the Catholic doesn't believe it's real (as in "chemical" ) blood? If a doctor told a Catholic that he needed a blood transfusion, the Catholic would expect to get real blood, not sacramental wine. If he insisted on a transfusion of sacramental wine, the doctor would try to convince him that it would be a bad idea. The doctor might have to call a priest, who would probably be flummoxed and might say something like, "The wine isn't the type of blood that runs in your veins," or some other explanation that will convince him to do the medical procedure. If neither doctor or the priest are able to convince the person that he shouldn't put wine into his veins, then the doctor would likely, at that point, conclude that he is delusional.

And this distinction is what psychiatrists are after. They don't care if you sing about going to heaven or being abducted by aliens every Sunday, they don't care if you sing it with a billion people, or if you sing it by yourself. They don't care if you say wine is blood, they only care if you believe this so literally, practically and completely that you'll insist on being injected with sacramental wine. Then they'll inject you with thorazine and give you real blood.

for Santa worshippers...

Last edited Tue Feb 27, 2018, 01:56 AM - Edit history (1)

If you want a heavenly reward, I recommend you find a local artisan chocolate easter bunny.

Was never fond of Cadbury chocolates of any fashion. Husband always expects the eggs with that crunchy shell. (Yick.)

I was being silly what I said. Sorta meant allegiance to some imposters in the Cadbury Easter commercial. The dog, lion and what?, a bunny clucking. That's a hoot. It's been running every year for mb decades.

I'd like to order some boutique chocolates. Got some names. Also some handcrafted 'mallows'.

I appreciated quality, not quantity, but stuff gets expensive with that taste.

then, what you're reading does not apply to you. If religious belief and practice were uniform, all theists would be alike. It is not, so they are not.

If someone criticizes some religious people for their behavior, look inward and check your own behavior before assuming you are the subject of criticism.

The actual point is that these attacks on theists is not dialogue. They are addressed to theists as a class of humans. 85% of humans. So anyone in that class, anyone in that 85%, would be included in these constant attacks.

"Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule."

- Friedrich Nietzsche, in Beyond Good and Evil.

Appealing to popular belief as the standard for truth, is even known in Philosophy as a formal logical fallacy:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

But nice linking of an unrelated topic.

Keep in mind that there are objections to all religion; 100%. Even yours.

Often the less murderous theists will insist that angry criticisms of violent believers don't apply to they, themselves. But even allegedly meek and mild believers, as long as they support religion, serve as enablers for the violent.

The particular psychological mechanism at work in such apologists, would probably be "Denial."

Guil? Aren't you your violent, crazy brother's keeper? Or at least, his whitewasher? His enabler?

and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. served as "enablers of the violent"?

Seems to me they were just the opposite.

King was good. But soon half of American Christianity went hard right. And nobody, no churches, stopped them.

and I don't quite see how they were supposed to "stop" "American Christianity" from going hard right.

No more than I can blame Democrats for the actions of Republicans.

"Gandhi was good" and he was also a devout Hindu. Rev. King was a Christian minister. Their religious beliefs were at the heart of their progressive work. Gandhi founded the Satyagraha movement--Satyagraha translates into English as something like "Soul Spirit Power." The beginning of non-violent civil disobedience that's transformed the world. His title, "Mahatma" is a religious title meaning "Great Soul." Rev. King founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) which was at the heart of the civil rights movement. He directly borrowed Gandhi's methods, and gave it the same sort of religious underpinning

Churches were bombed during the struggle for civil rights. Remember the little girls murdered in the Birmingham Baptist Church while they attended Sunday school? Progressives seem to have forgotten how much religious people struggled and sacrificed to move us forward.

And maybe if so many American progressives weren't so immediately dismissive of religion, and so contemptuous of its power to move people to do good, maybe American Christianity wouldn't have gone so far right. I'm speaking as an agnostic. It depresses me that progressives have basically left the playing field as far as religion is concerned, just like right wing radio is pretty much dominant in every media market all across the country. Just like, somehow, the right has coopted patriotism, even as they sell our democracy to a hostile foreign power.

Like it or not, this is a religious country, and we progressives have to figure out how to make this work for us. Besides which, the essential Christian message--love your neighbor, give comfort to the afflicted, visit those in prison, do what you can to help the poor--is far closer to our message than to the right's.

I think it's time we took religion back from the extreme right. And we can start by not immediately attacking those among us who have religious feelings.

But I'd partly warn about your conclusion. By trying to work within Christianity, most activists end being coopted and assimilated. And de-clawed. Having been taught " tolerance" for "our Christian brothers."

If you or others want to return to churches to reform from within, I agree that would be very useful. As long as you can continue to resist assimilation.

Progressive Muslims and a few Hindus. Really, I never pay any attention to people's religion. It's actions that are how I determine whether or not I respect someone.

Every religion is made up of individuals. I don't find much correlation between major classes of religions and individual behavior.

I think as progressives we should be less concerned with what particular religion, if any, a person subscribes to, but rather if they are willing or not to work toward achieving a progressive agenda. I don't think we can afford to alienate people who might otherwise be our friends and allies.

I try to keep in mind that many progressive achievements and movements originated among religious people: the abolitionist movement being a prime example.

That said, I also don't think we should be reluctant to point out abuses of human rights or dignity, where ever they occur and under whatever guise.

Best wishes.

Every Christian has his own idea of what "the essential Christian message" is. Many of them who vote Republican don't agree at all with your interpretation of "the essential Christian message". How are we supposed to convince them they're doing it wrong?

We might, however, refrain from calling those who DO agree with this interpretation of Christian teaching inherently "delusional" "schizophrenic" etc. etc.

Aside from being trash psychology, as has been demonstrated by the discussion of the DSM in response to this OP, it needlessly alienates people who could and should be our allies. Including, for example, the very many African American churches that continue to do good work in support of much of what I take to be our agenda ("pulpit to poll" activism that the GOP does so much to try to suppress).

As for those who have bought the right wing (which means, historically, the Southern white) version of Christianity, I'm not sure anything will convince them, other than hard experience. Although I have had one on one discussions with such people and have been able to raise at least a glimmer of doubt in them. Just as a for instance, I sat next to a right wing Christian on a long Greyhound bus ride. I knew what was about to happen when he asked me, "So, do you ever think about your relationship with God?"

Rather than calling him delusional, stupid, schizophrenic, I decided to debate the issues on his own terms. Quoting the part of Gospel in which Jesus talks about the Judgment Day. People are divided into two categories. Into one category are those who gave him drink when he was thirsty, food when he was hungry, solace when he was sick, people who visited him in prison. These are the people he gathers to himself--whatever that might mean. On the other hand are people who turned him away when he was thirsty or hungry, abandoned him when he was in prison, etc. In each case those being judged ask, essentially, "Lord, when did I ever see you in that situation, and then" [depending on the person] either helped you or turned you away. Jesus answers, if you've done these things to ANYONE -- you've done it to me.

He tried getting around that (it's not a part of the Bible much quoted by the right) but since he was wedded to the idea of ALL of the Bible having crucial validity, he couldn't (and I wouldn't) allow him to pass it by. I told him that by supporting a right wing agenda that hurts the poor and demonizes those in prison, he was essentially rejecting Jesus, every time he voted for the GOP, every time he agreed with someone like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. He was visibly upset at this--obviously the thought had never occurred.

The discussion ended with the guy asking, in exasperation, "How do you know God hasn't put me here next to you to save your soul?"

To which I answered, "How do you know God hasn't put ME here to save YOUR soul?"

Besides shutting him up, finally, I like to think it also planted a seed that might someday bear some fruit.

Now, we can't always engage one on one like this. But, as I've said, we should at least do what we can not to needlessly alienate those people--adherents of liberation theology, for instance, or queer theology, that can and will support aspects of the progressive agenda. Just as an another example, I'd cite the Metropolitan Community Church, a Christian denomination founded in the 1960s for LGBT people who want to retain their belief in Christ and the community that comes with that. These folks are persecuted enough by the far right. What good does it do to publicly speculate on their "mental health"--as if being brutally persecuted, and finding solace in a religion the avatar of which is someone judicially murdered for who he was and what he said--is evidence of some obvious delusion or mental failing?

I know my posts tend to get long and rambling, sorry about that. Just trying to answer your question.

Anyway, best wishes to you and yours.

But simply by being Christian, by standing up in church every week and declaring that a guy born of a virgin died and came back to life and is going to come some day and take us all to heaven to live forever, they grant legitimacy and give social and political cover to what would otherwise be a crackpot, lunatic fringe group that only got laughed at and had no political influence whatsoever.

whatsoever?"

During the colonial period, when Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded and governed by Puritans?

During the "Great Awakening" when religious upheaval was part of the wave of social change leading up to the American Revolution?

In the lead-up to the Civil War, when abolitionism came pretty much directly out of New England churches?

During the Civil War, when Lincoln told us, in his second inaugural, that "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether?"

During World War II, when FDR on D-Day offered a prayer for "our sons, pride of our nation"?

During the civil rights movement, led by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Rev. Jessie Jackson, Minister Malcolm X and other people of faith?

To which era are you referring, precisely?

The last time Christianity had "no political influence whatsoever" was perhaps at the beginning of the reign of Constantine, roughly 1600 years ago. Since then that "crackpot, lunatic fringe group" has been at the very center--for good or ill--of European and then American politics.

If you're going to criticize people for being delusional you might want to get a better grip on historical reality yourself.

You might have read my post a little more carefully and understood it before you spent all that time on your self-righteous rant.

But then again, calling tens of millions of voters--many of whom might vote our way and have voted our way in the past--lunatics and fringe doesn't strike me as a winning electoral strategy.

But I get it, you're contemptuous of anyone who isn't an atheist.

The problem is, it's hardly ever a good idea to express contempt for people whose votes you're counting on. I'm thinking, for instance, of the millions of African American church goers, who are among our most dependable base.

Accusing all of them of being complicit in--well, what is it again you're saying? That simply going to church is some awful crime against humanity?

Seems awfully broad-brush to me.

with an attack. Nice. But human nature is what it is. And no, I said nothing about a "crime against humanity". You know that. You made that up as a bogus smear, and it's morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest.

And what the F is it with this meme about "we can't afford to offend people whose votes we need"? Are they going to vote the way we want because it's the right thing to do, or because we kiss their ass? If it's the former, they won't give a shit what we think or say. And if it's the latter, they are not allies we want, because they'll stab us in the back the minute someone else kisses their ass harder.

When one church sees another church doing a bad thing? It should unambiguously denounce it from the pulpit. Rather than ignoring it. Or urging people to ignore it in the spirit of "Christian fellowship and charity," or "tolerance," or ecumenism.

to nonviolently protest anything they consider abhorrent: Write LTE's. Issue press releases. Buy ads. Organize marches and rallies. Etc. Make the public aware of exactly where they stand on each issue, and why they think those other guys are doing it wrong.

Would that have worked? Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know, will we, because it didn't happen on any appreciable scale.

What not to do: Refuse to condemn a brother of the faith. Pray and do nothing else. Declare that the RW churches aren't Christian. We know these don't work.

wrote his Letter from a Birmingham Jail in direct response to right wing (and white) ministers who were counseling "patience" while African Americans were being cruelly and wickedly oppressed.

But yeah, I also wonder if a more organized and more vehement response from liberal denominations might have had more impact, say back in the 70s and 80s when the so-called Moral Majority was on the rise.

One problem--among many--is that right wing Christians have all this money backing them--something the left isn't able to muster. This is made even worse when right wingers have control of the federal government--"faith based initiatives" being little more than slush funds for right wing churches.