The Religious Rightwing Invades DU

Don't you think the Freekers and other insane fundamentalists are chuckling at the religious/cultural wars amongst liberals?

The main false argument the religious right propogates in this country is that if you object to their blatant bigotry, you are somehow "anti-Christian" or "anti-faith."

And we see that same argument used here: if you object to the bigotry and discrimination fostered by the Vatican, that somehow makes you "anti-Catholic."

Let's be clear folks. You can be adamantly opposed to the religious rightwing in this country and still be pro faith. You can be diametrically opposed to some of the Vatican orthodoxy and still be pro Catholic.

There are billions of very religious people, worldwide, who are for a woman's right to privacy, who are pro gay equality and marriage, who are for birth control and family planning and who are for individual freedoms vs. state power.

Fighting against the fundamentalists does not mean you are anti-religion. IT MEANS YOU ARE ANTI-FUNDAMENTALIST.

We are not anti-religion. We are ANTI-FUNDAMENTALIST.

Something to shout from the rooftops every chance we get.

Well said. I"m a Catholic who is not pleased with the direction my church has taken and not at all pleased with the Nazi Pope.

There were so many better choices. THis guy was JPII's attack dog. He has said some terrible damning things in the past. If he turns out to be better than expected, then the better for everybody. But I doubt it. I seriusly doubt it.

This guy was key in hiding Cardnial Law at the Vatican. I'm sure all the victimes of sexual abuse by Proests in this country are as thrilled as I am with his selection.


EDITED TO ADD:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x121386> Here is a snip from an artilce posted by Bloom. This ratzinger is against everything we, as liberals, stand for- thinking on our own, protesting when we feel a grievance. Liberals all over the world felt their heart sink when ratzinger stepped out onto the balcony as our new Pope.

Thank God he won't be Pope too long.

So, really, pa-leeze back at you. What about this guy could you like and defend?

serves no purpose.

FYI - Cardinal Law broke no law and never behaved in an immoral way. Law MAY have been able to do more to prevent abusive behavior by priests but no one has accused Cardina Law of wrong doing.

You're actually sitting there defending people who were complicit in aiding and covering up for child abusers.

Amazing that in your zeal to defend a corrupt institution on what you must believe are moral grounds, you actually are defending some of the most heinous, immoral people on the earth.

Getting upset, calling names and losing control are a bit excessive when one realizes the man has just been selected. Can people wait until the man does something BEFORE losing it?

Or do we act like GOP and lynch'em and then let God sort it all out?

but two days ago, his first official act was to condemn Spain for the process of legalizing gay marriage. He took the opportunity to reiterate his gentle, loving, godly phrase to describe gay people: "intrinsic evil."

Good enough to perhaps have a bit of wariness of this guy?

with hyperbole on both sides of every issue. I'm with you, I generally like to discuss things with the temperature lowered a bit.

The only glimmer of hope that I could possibly see for this guy is that he believed as Chief Doctrinaire enforcer, he was doing the prior Pope's bidding, and that he had to put his own personal views aside. And now that HE has the power and the reigns, he will follow a path that honors and cherishes freedom and the nurturing of the human spirit.

But I really doubt it.

but I won't accept name calling for the sake of a bunnch of Ann Coulter want'a bes.

it's simply stating a fact. And I don't care that he's 'just started' as pope - he's done a lot of damage as Cardinal. And what in the hell do you mean by saying that Law 'hasn't done anything immoral'???? Shifting pedophile priests around so they can harm more CHILDREN is as immoral as you get.

And with the names he calls us, it seems perfectly reasonable to throw the actual truth right back at him.

and since he is the Commander in Chief. :shrug:

Uh-oh. You name called. I'm telling. The correct name is President Bush.

I can't believe we're actually talking about name calling.


Cardinal Law, to me, is like a Principal of a school who knows a teacher is molesting a kid. Instead of turning that teacher into law enforcement, the principal has the teacher transferred to another school.


I've been gone from my computer for several hours and was shocked to see so many threads actually defending the new Pope (see, no name calling) and worried about name calling.

Ratzi = Nazi than Gay = evil

Nazi than Gay is equal to evil? Razi?

Name calling is always so clear and understandable.

to do anything I cannot be stopped from doing. Which sometimes entails not getting caught at it. This is not quite as bad as it sounds, as I am a decent, civilized, likable guy. So, shading my eyes against the blue and fiery afternoon, I began searching for ways to convince the authorities of this. Lying, I decided, was probably best." Roger Zelazny "Doorways in the Sand" 1976 p. 35

So you are going to convince the Catholic masses that the pope is wrong about you by hurling racist epithets at him? Maybe as a person with German ancestry that I take that personally.

you are here. Seems others want only to call names and then get angry when it is pointed out that name-calling get no one anywhere.

Again thank you for your comments.

Saying that all German WWII soldiers were Nazi's is about as accurate as saying that everyone in the US military today is a Republican.

In Nazi Germany, only adults could join the Nazi party. Ratzinger was a kid in a Nazi sponsored organization, but his HY membership didn't make him a member of the Nazi party (it didn't work that way). When he was drafted into the military, he went into the Wehrmacht, not the SS. Only Wehrmacht officers had to swear allegience to the party, and as a draftee Ratzinger wasn't an officer.

Technically, he wasn't a Nazi. You might make the argument that his service furthered Nazi interests (I find it to be a weak argument), but there is absolutely zero evidence that he was ever a Nazi party member or swore loyalty to the Nazis.

the Catholic church, too, not just the Pope.


And Law... you have got to be kidding. He sent priests away instead of taking the accussations seriusly.

Clearly, we disagree. You can continue to go on and on. I am not changing my mind. Me, along with people all over the globe, fear this man. You can believe whatever you need to, but I think he is dangerous.

Name calling? Are we allowed to name-call the rethugs, or is it just not a religious figure?

I'd rather discus issues. Leave the name calling to others.

Bernard Law was instrumental in the warehousing of pedaphilic clerics, and the ignored the pleas for succor by the victims of criminal sexual acts perpetrated by catholic priests in his diocese. He defended the CRIMINALS, and betrayed the victims ....

As an ex-catholic, I am appalled that any catholic would brook such atrocious behaviour by a bishop, and defend him here in this liberal forum ....

Perhaps you arrived here on a wayward boat ? ...

Did you disembark at the wrong train station ? ...

Hey, might as well apologize for James Dobson or Fred Phelps. Liberal doesn't mean 'wishy-washy'

this world would be a pretty good place. NAME CALLING isn't the problem here. Covering up for pedophiles is the problem. Denouncing people for WHO THEY ARE is the problem.

I don't see any of your posts addressing anything 'in depth', so take your insults somewhere else.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How provactive... to write one liners. How in depth. What "reasoned intellect and the spirit of inquiry for the sake of enlightened understanding" there was to be found.

Herded sheep aren't found on this board. Here, let me help you...

Do we call names here? Sure. So what? After the things that liberals have been called, especially by this particular clergyman, he isn't above scrutiney, criticism and a bit of old-fashioned anger just because he has the title of Pope. As a Catholic, the choice of this guy made my heart sink. I hope more than anything I turn out to be wrong, but with one his first official responses being to go after the people of Spain who have now allowed gay marriage, I have a strong feeling I am right on the money.

Willing to take a minority stance... :rofl:

Well, I guess it is the minority stance to defend the MAN of GOD who turned his back on INNOCENT CHILDREN by sending priests accused of molestation to other parishes with fresh young children. I HOPE this is the minority stance.


I am on Democratic Underground, right? The liberal site? Maybe I need to double check.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

with all due respect, there are plenty of sheeple on this board as well

deleted hours prior to your post.


The poster was basically saying that anyone who question the great cardinal law is merely following the liberal sheep and not thinking. This poster was congratualing a cardinal law apologist.

cardinal law is the clergy who didn't report acusations of sexual abuse. He was like, as I've previously stated, a principal who has acusations of a teacher molesting students and has the teacher transferred rather than reported to the authorities. The newest pope was instrumental in having cardinal law transfereed to the vatican. As a Catholic, I find that highly offensive. It's also highly offensive to others, as well.

Yes, there are sheeple everywhere, but in this case, the comments were directly related to those who excuse the horrific acts my church has committed against innocent people.

have a good evening

It was my pleaseure!

Take care, buddy!

will get me the answer I need

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1413825

Yes, he is a disaster.

"Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry

Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep allegations secret":

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1469055,00.html

Now we move on from there.

Like an 'intelligent adult'??

Why are all of your posts one-liners?

Why do you not back up any of your assertions or allegations with facts or links?

Why do you think that 'name calling' is the worst sin on earth, instead of the true hate and bigotry that lies beneath the statements and attitudes of the RCC?

You will be one of the very few people I have on ignore.

Got to keep it simple for some... I mean, we're talking about an appologist for cardinal law here.

As I said before, law is like a principal who knows a teacher is molesting children, but has that teacher transferred instead of calling the cops. How can you make excuses for that?

Thankfully, bumpersticker thinking comes and goes around here.

So, thank you and goodnight. I'm taking my ball and going home now.


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I especially despise people who so self-righteously accuse me of something and then do the same damn thing themselves (not you, the other person, who is on ignore).

This whole thing has been amusing to me. Blue Moon has been deleted. Imagine that! This cardinal law apologist is still telling everyone thank you and goodnight.

Is it too much to hope for a "goodbye," too?

has.

It should freak you out.

six times in the span of 3 minutes. Then you threw a couple more in just to round out the thread. It's a real nice debate tactic and a great way to get you post count up there. Bravo! :eyes:


Jay

An apologist for pedophiles, a Hitler youth, and the head of the Inquisition is NO holy person.

Pope-a-ratzi. While I an not to pleased with the background, I am willing to give him a chance to get a handle on things. Sometimes, people can rise to their responsibilities. Who knows, he may turn out to be the most beloved Pope we will ever know and we will be sorry that his time was short. I find his choice of names interesting, so I have hope.
His time, good or bad, will be short.

He's 78 and he doesn't look all that healthy.

I sincerely doubt his successor will be much of an improvement, though. Things proceed in the Vatican at a glacial pace. After all, it took them over 400 years to admit Galileo was right.

They may realize that using the birth control pill or condom on an overpopulated planet is good and moral, too, but it'll take them another 400 years to get there.

telling people they are sinning because they use a condom?

In countries like Africa, where AIDS and other std's are rampant, telling people NOT to use condoms would seem to me to be the sin.

Morally, the world of the Vatican is upside down at times.

I should say that he Church, and it's teachings Have Changed over time. The balance between the Central authority, and the practices of it's churches, and their members, has also changed over time. Many local beliefs have been incorporated. Catholic means Universal. I believe it's possible for The Church to encompass many beliefs, in spite of what the current Central authority might say. The only thing that bothers me about some of the criticisms I've seen here are some of the right wing fundie Anti-Pope talking points that I've seen repeated. I've no problem with those going overboard with their attacks on his conservatism, except to say that I think they might be surprised by how liberal he turns out to be, in the reforms his reputation for conservatism puts him in a position to make, and in his strong opposition to unjust wars of aggression.

Whether this will sink in or not is anybody's guess.

:banghead:

a term always used to stifle intelligent dialog.

Since being a Christian of any stripe requires absolute belief in the bible -- and I find the bible to be an archaic patriarchal piece of nonsense that has been used for millennium to subjugate all non-European peoples, all women worldwide, and any other minority group it takes a hating to, I don't see much difference between an RCC, a Fundie, or any other Christian. As long as Christians buy the RCC-developed bible of the Council of Nicea and look no further for relevant scriptual documents nor repudiate some of those included. I ask you, what is the difference?

What others do and say in Jesus's name must not be use to define who a Christian is.

Hearing what Jesus said and following Jesus's teaching makes one a Christoan.

being a christian of any stripe requires absolute belief in the bible.

Simply not true.

"Absolute belief in the bible" is fundamentalism. Sherlock.

Especially since most Christians do not, and have not, lived in the West.

But more practically, the difference is that as a political activist, you should pick your battles wisely. If you want to believe that the Bible is an archaic piece (I say pieces, but again digress) of nonsense, that's fine...but your point of view is outside of the scope of this thread. The OP was attempting to distinguish between fundamentalists and progressive Christians...you, on the other hand, in your characterization of the Bible are taking to task Christians (2 billion nominally worldwide), Muslims (1 Billion nominally worldwide), Jews, etc. Like I said...out of the scope of this thread. You prefer an attempt to marginalize 3.5 billion people over an attempt to marginalize fundamentalists, a much more manageable foe.

Well this Christian is a liberal who will fight for your right to believe what you want and continue to have faith in my own values, which I received based on my Christian upbringing by the way. I value you as a person and don't give a rat's ass what you think of me because you don't know me at all. I love all people...regardless of their beliefs and look for the good in everyone. Now if you think I'm stupid because of these values that is your right. I am a Democrat and proud and will fight fundies and their "righteous" attitude. All people are equal.

You sure don't sound "stupid" to me! :hi:

And as an atheist, I share your sentiments except I'm not a Christian.

Since being a Christian of any stripe requires absolute belief in the bible

You imply a degree of literalism here. I'm a life-long Presbyterian without an "absolute belief in the Bible" I think it's a wonderful colleciton of writings, some of the best humanity is capable of, but I wouldn't call it perfect, by a long shot. These writings were published by imperfect human beings.

allow me to point out that your post shows a woeful ignorance of both Christianity and the Bible. It reminds me of nothing so much as Radical Cleric Falwell--or Robertson or DeLay--spluttering about the evils of how secular humanist claim life "evolutionized." If you want to argue against someone's position, it is necessary to know first what that position is.

Mycroft

religion doesn't occur in a vacuum. It affects those of us who are not religious.

Therefore, we have the right to call it as we see it and not pussyfoot around.

"if your not Catholic, your going to hell",nothing personal.

All these cults/fundies (non-catholics) better repent soon, judgement day and all that...have a nice day.

And Rove will gladly use that to show that all democrats are anti-faith and bigoted against believers. I use to wonder how Americans could believe that propaganda from Rove but now I understand that there is a basis for it.

I believe the outright hostility toward any profession of faith is probably a minority position in the democratic party but Rove claims its a tenet of democrats and we certainly lend credibility toward that claim.

for me stomach. But I'm not sure that the thought process that produces even relatively "enlightened" or tolerant religion is really different in kind ( as opposed to different in DEGREE) from the process that produces fundamentalism.

Since both share the same irrational thought processes ( at least at the outset) ... ie. a belief in the irrational, a leap of "faith"... one is tempted to challenge the premises of even the progressive varieties of religion.

In other words, I'm not sure it is only fundamentalism that I object to. OTOH, it is for sure the most menacing right now.

You are right to be suspicious whenever these flame wars pop up. The same people keep kicking the same threads and saying the same things.

You have to ask yourself who benefits from this.

I live in Chicago, which has a huge Catholic Democrat population. I've met very few Democrats who would share the views of the people trolling - yes, trolling - on DU.

That's the very obvious difference between
progressive and regressive people of
faith.

I know the difference between a religious person, a religious fundamentalist, a religious fanatic, and religion-peddling political extremist!

:headbang:
rocknation

Keep it Simple (for the) Stupid
Religion is fine, Religious people are fine.
Politics is Politics...
Mixing Religion and Politics? Bad results every time.
Freedom of Religion means Freedom From Religion too. Real people of Faith understand that.


Separation of Church and State. Good.
Preachers, Priests, Gurus and Mullahs telling you how to vote? BAD.


Liberals aren't ant-Faith or anti-Religion. We are Pro-Freedom.
Let the insane fundies chuckle all they want. There's no real divide among Liberals about Faith. We can actually have adult discussions about it ad-nauseum. It's the fundies that will eventually foam at the mouth and wrestle each other in the dirt over who is going to Hell because they can't decide who is God's candidate/party.

That should be the offical DNC position.



Welcome to DU!:hi:

www.missionnotaccomplished.us (The.Day.WE.BEGIN.............)

If I could nominate individual posts for "Greatest" i would nominate this one. I have NEVER kicked any of the Religio-War threads until this one, only to add my comments to your particular post. I would personally like to see ALL of the religio-threads sink like a stone as soon as they are posted.


Quote from bonzotex for the Definitive, Conclusive Analysis:

"Religion is fine, Religious people are fine.
Politics is Politics...
Mixing Religion and Politics? Bad results every time.
Freedom of Religion means Freedom From Religion too. Real people of Faith understand that.

Separation of Church and State. Good.
Preachers, Priests, Gurus and Mullahs telling you how to vote? BAD.

Liberals aren't ant-Faith or anti-Religion. We are Pro-Freedom."


Nuff said.
This is a POLITICAL forum.

Render unto Caesar,what is Caesars. Render unto God, what is Gods.

And the sooner we all start limiting our opposition posts/activities to our own home-based Religious Extremists, and calling them that rather than other less exclusive and broad-brush labels, the better.

Speaking here as a collapsed Catholic, sometime atheist, full-time agnostic, once in a while pagan/animist, ask me next week what I believe-type person. :)

What I always, always, always will oppose is theocrats of any stripe, and I'll call 'em by name.

I have this, uh,...let's say personal issue with "meanies" *LOL* no matter where they pop up. I have this strong compulsion to confront them and then dig in my heels,...with passionate stubborness. I am TRYING to remember that, sometimes, the most productive action is no action. I'll try to do better. :7

is it those billion individual Catholics doing their best to lead good Christian lives and still make sense of world? . . . or a bunch of guys in red dresses in the Vatican telling them what to think and what to do -- even when it contradicts their own understanding of Creation? . . .

the guys in the red dresses control all the money.

Throat. I don't need any kind of religion. The civil public laws are enough for me (and most anybody else if they really observed their function) to keep track of. If I need any more problems to wrestle with DU will be first place I will come looking for them. But until then, one thing at a time.


I find this article parallels or even is analogous to all this religious hype.


The Age of Corporate Open Source Enlightenment


From Open Source
Vol. 1, No. 5 - July/August 2003
by Paul Ferris
Like it or not, zealots and heretics are finding common ground in the open source holy war.

page 1
Introduction

It's a bad idea, mixing politics and religion. Conventional wisdom tells us to keep them separate—and to discuss neither at a dinner party. The same has been said about the world of software. When it comes to mixing the open source church with the proprietary state (or is it the other way around?), only one rule applies: Don't do it.

Still, people keep trying to mix the two—the software, that is. For example, some companies spend countless hours in committees with the hopeful goal of finding a way the two can work together in harmony. More often than not, however, a heated debate erupts between warring religious factions.

People on the sidelines (often wearing suits) are amused, disgusted, or baffled by this. It's just technology, they say. "This Linux thing is just like Unix, isn't it?," they ask. No one is quite able to explain what's going on. The constant blur of change in IT doesn't help matters much either.

Consider this a feeble attempt to explain some of the undercurrents in the open source movement as they pertain to corporate America today. Sure, it would be nice to avoid the religious metaphor, but doing so would leave out some of the most important elements driving this change, along with the caveats that are a part of the craziness of it all.
(snip)
http://www.acmqueue.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=printer_friendly&pid=54&page=1

except I don't think DU is being invaded by the religious right though some might come here for a hit and run.

Nazi popes and such isn't spoken in a vacuum either or as someone who grew up Catholic and can notice whispers and such can tell. The term cafeteria Catholics is used simply because the crap that comes from the vatican sometimes is impossible to adhere to or follow. I mean, when 80% of Catholics pay no heed to say birth control announcements from a pope but the rest of the world hangs on with baited breath, its kinda strange.

I'd say AMEN, but I'm spiritual not religious! LOL

I agree with you 100% and am ONLY against fundies that are TRYING TO TAKE OVER this country and everyone in it. Otherwise, I could care less about someones religion and say go ahead and be as devout as you want-just don't shove it down MY throat Thank You Very Much!

I definitely think there is an agenda by some people here on DU-who come here just to disrupt and play their fundie religion card. I can usually spot the fundie freepers right away because I spent about a year arguing with em on another board and know their m.o. all too well. I don't always call them on it, but I know em when I see em.

shout it out

if he returned. He was poor. He was a carpenter. He spent much of his time preaching love and tolerance. These are foreign concepts to the religious rightwing. They are the modern equivalent of the religious hierarchy that existed back then.

"There are billions of very religious people, worldwide, who are for a woman's right to privacy, who are pro gay equality and marriage..."

Statements patently devoid of factual support discredit one's entire argument. One need not oppose a woman's right to privacy or gay equality to recognize your statement was taken out of thin air. Indeed, those who agree should be most disturbed when reasonable arguments are supported by fictions. Of course, I could be wrong and you may indeed have factual support for the above statement. If so, perhaps you could share it.

By the way, I'm not Catholic; nor am I a Christian fundamentalist. I am a litigator who knows from experience that any line of reasoning is only as strong as its weakest link. An otherwise winning argument can be undermined by one false foundational fact.

To disclaim that you are "not fundamentalist"?

As a litigator you should probably know full well that a reasonable person could assume you were a freeper troll.

And since about 2/3rds of the world, more or less according to the latest polling data, believe in some sort of supernatural being (even more in the U.S.) and since at least half of those people, if not more, according to election results from around the globe, fall in line with progressive thought vs. reactionary thought, then the numbers would crunch out at approx 1-2 billion people who are both religious and progressive at the same time.

Spain is a prime example. Religious, very Catholic, and yet very liberal socially - in the process of legalizing gay marriage actually.

Hence the (s) after billion and hence your problem with the statement is fully discredited.

I noted that I am neither Catholic nor a fundamentalist because I correctly foresaw a response with a personal attack – I don’t know what a “freeper troll” is, but I’m sure it’s not a compliment.

Please understand that my criticism is constructive. A good argument should not be undermined by falsity of foundational facts. Your response is seriously deficient because it offers no facts.

I will illustrate what an adversary would do with your statement that "there are billions of very religious people, worldwide, who are for a woman's right to privacy, who are pro gay equality and marriage..." Because you are saying that “billions of very religious people” believe in both “a woman's right to privacy” and “gay equality and marriage,” your adversary need only focus on the weakest factual link, which is “gay equality and marriage.”

Based on the sources linked below, following are the countries that have legalized same-sex marriages or civil unions or that have passed or have pending legislation or court decisions recognizing equal rights for same-sex couples (the population in parentheses is rounded up in every case, even when unwarranted): Belgium (10,182,034 = 11 million); Canada (32 million); Denmark (6 million); France (59 million); Finland (6 million); Germany (83 million); Greenland (60,000); Iceland (300,000); Netherlands (16 million); Norway (5 million); Portugal (10 million); Spain (40 million); and Sweden (9 million). The total population of these countries is about 277,360,000.

Because the above figures are based on 1999 data, let’s be generous and add 10%, or 28 million. The total becomes 305,360,000.

Now, we haven’t included the United States, with a total population of about 300 million. Let’s again be generous and say 50% of Americans favor same-sex marriage. That would add another 150 million. The total then becomes 455,360,000, not even a half billion.

In sum, even when all data are rounded up and all assumptions are in favor of higher numbers, your statement appears devoid of basis in fact. This will significantly weaken – if not discredit altogether – your entire argument.


Sources:

http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/alternative_lifestyles/same_sex_marriage/gay_laws_around_the_world_/index.shtml

http://www.photius.com/wfb1999/rankings/population_1.html

I said that there were billions of people IN FAVOR OF a woman's right to privacy, equality for gay people, etc. You are only counting those countries that have already legalized same sex marriage or civil unions. There are obviously many people in favor of progressive causes, including civil unions and same sex marriage, in the hundreds of OTHER countries which haven't yet legalized marriage or civil unions.

The world's population is estimated at 6,432,674,331 as of 4/24/05 at 8:29:57 PM EDT.

Same sex marriage in countries where there is a large fundamentalist Christian movement still have the support of 35% of the population or more (see US statistics). Civil unions in the US actually have roughly 60% of the U.S. in favor). So let's extrapolate and say that in other, more secular nations, it's more like 50/50. We then have the fundamentalist, islamic middle east and africa to contend with, where the argument can be made that only an enlightened 20 - 25% of the population would favor such proposals. So, let's be very conservative and say that only 30% of the world population favors civil unions or same sex marriage (far less on the whole than the figures for the United States) This would still mean roughly 2 billion would be in favor of it.

Having said that, I think this discussion is kind of pointless. Whether it's 1 billion or 4 billion, the point remains that many religious people WORLDWIDE support progressive social issues, on many fronts. The larger point being that religion is not monothilic, and that we cannot generalize about "religious" people and posit that they are all mostly rightwingers on social issues. Fundamentalists, in general, yes. Religious people, no.

I realize that social rightwingers in the U.S. hate this construct because it pigeonholes them (rightly)as fundamentalists and belies their attempt to portray their fundamentalism as somehow representative of all faith or all religion or all spirituality. These facts makes them extremely uncomfortable because it shows how dishonest their political movement is.

One can be fully against the agenda of the "religious right" in this country and still be very pro-faith, pro-spirituality and pro-religion. Focus on the Family has no patent on morality or goodness.

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/popclockw

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

ruggerson,

I'm not questioning that "one can be fully against the agenda of the 'religious right' in this country and still be very pro-faith, pro-spirituality and pro-religion." I agree with you.

All I'm saying is that using a dubious factual averment to support an otherwise valid point weakens the point and may undermine it altogether.

No poll confirms "billions" favor what you say they favor because, to my knowledge, no poll has been taken of the entire world or even of one billion people on these questions. If you can refer to polls in individual countries on these issues, convert the percentages supporting your proposition into numbers based on the national populations (factoring in the margins of error), add each individual result and come up with more than two billion, you would have a reasonable basis to make the statement.

I believe the statement I've challenged is unnecessary to your overall point. I don't agree, however, that "this discussion is kind of pointless." If your adversary can distract from your main point by colorably challenging an unnecessary factual assertion you've made, your point can be weakened or even nullified. I'm just advising you to think through what facts are absolutely critical to your conclusion and then use only those facts.

Whether in the courtroom or in political discussions with friends, I never underestimate my adversary. At the risk of seeming pedantic rather than supportive, I refer you to the following description of common logical fallacies: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

There are two clear benefits in having a working knowledge of logical fallacies: avoiding them is critical when taking affirmative positions and detecting them is critical when challenging positions taken by others.

but the gist of the message was not about where there are billions or hundreds of millions of anti fundamentalist religious folk, the gist was that simply we should start framing the debate as "anti-fundamentalist" and refute the other side's attempt to smear all progressives as "anti-religion."

I understand your point about strict adherence to provable fact, but this is not a court of law, nor am I arguing at trial: this is a discussion on a political bulletin board, and part of the charm here is that we get to bloviate and pontificate about what we believe.

Having said that, I believe fiercely in the original post, and were I having a formal debate with a fundamentalist Republican, I would surely use no hyperbole that I could not empirically prove. Although, I honestly think if we could somehow accurately crunch the numbers, my statistical assertion would not be far off at all.

"statistics(facts) are meaningless,they can be used to prove anything"-

which is too true- The 'fact' that most countries don't have laws allowing same-sex marriage, or guaranteeing a womans right to privacy doesn't mean that individually if you asked each and every person in the world, you might find that indeed, we DO wish each other the freedom to live life free of 'laws' that have NOTHING to do with the 'common good'-
but rather control the private lives of us pawns-

Fact is, Bush didn't 'win' the election for president- yet he 'assumed the position'-

As far as religion- i am a follower of Christ, who believes that FAITH is something as private and un-touchable to each and every individual as our right to breath. NO ONE should be allowed to stop me from believing in what i do- nor should i be able to force my breath into another persons lungs-

And not all people who follow Christ believe in the 'infallability' or 'idolitry' of the written bible-

As for Bigotry- which i believe calling the Pope a Nazi would fall into, i believe in looking at a persons ACTIONS and judging thier 'works, and walk' rather than thier affiliation- If the new Pope is speaking out defending the beliefs of Nazism, then i'd condemn that position,- but i haven't heard that- As for his condemning sexual orentation, i believe he is 100% wrong to do so- and i'd be willing to agree that most 'individuals' in this world would also disagree with his position-

saying he is a practicing Nazi. Clearly, he is not. He was, in his youth, a member of the Nazi party. And, in his adulthood, hasn't gone out of his way to repeat over and over how terrible he feels about it. You may be able to pull links, but the average world citizen isn't as high-tech as we are in more rich and powerful countries. And, he hasn't gone out of his way to embrace all people. So far, he has spoken against Spain and Harry Potter. What a great start.

Biggotted? Not biggotted, just name calling because we're pissed off. I have also heard * called a Nazi. Is that biggotted? No. Just pissed off. Tacky? Yes. And very pissed off. Don't take insults that others throw around quite so literal. I really don't think most people, like me, mean them in such a literal way.

others that are not their flock. When religious leaders condem a group of people it influences what their flock thinks and does and can spill over in the population. This is why many that are not part of any flock become angry, worried &/or fearful.

Examples: When a Pope says that Gay Mariage is an evil ideology that effects millions of people. When a Protestant preacher says that Gays are evil and would shoot a Gay person if approached by one this effects many people. Examples are many.

So is my Family. I know many others like that. Welcome to the Facts of life.

:thumbsup:

I wouldn't do it by signing up and posting, say, "George W. Bush Rules!" or "Hitlery Klintoon sux!" That's too obvious and results in immediate tombstoning.

I would, instead, post threads guaranteed to start flamewars. Religion and region threads are a great way to do that--they work every time. That way I could divide the different factions here and have people spend most of their time fighting over irrelevancies rather than learning and getting motivated and united to take on things that actually matter. I might also post some really nutty conspiracy stuff now and then so that when some people grab it and start running with it, as they inevitably will, DU will look like a hotbed of loonies. (This was seventhson's approach--anyone else remember him?) When big news stories come up I would harp on the angles least likely to have any impact, like the escort business about Guckert, rather than the real story, like Guckert being part of a larger White House effort to manipulate the press. And so on.

So I think you're right that there are plenty of disruptors here, but I don't think they're openly proselytizing their religious beliefs. They're a lot more subtle than that.

i love the old 'you're making us look bad' routine. gary bauer trolls for headlines that will 'make us all look bad', but fuck him.

I'm talking about stuff that alienates fellow Democrats.

and we have some of it here on DU, too. I mean, come on. Liberals cannibalizing other liberals over religion. It's sad.

Fuckin dweebs.

Want to believe in whatever you believe in? Hey, that's great.

However, when personal religion BECOMES a political issue because certain religious people are trying to impose their faith on the rest of us, well, it's hardly surprising that people -religious and secular- who believe in the Separation of Church and State will be duly outraged.

Calling Democrats "anti-religion" is a bullshit rightwing smear, but I also don't like it when people on our side rant and rage and complain about how the right wing is painting the Democratic Party as "The Party of Atheists".

Not ALL Democrats are Atheists, but this one sure as hell is, and I'm also not about to apologize for it, or act like it's some big political liability that is worth dignifying with a response- any more than bigoted smears about how the Dem. party is, say, "the Party of Gays" would be.

Being an Atheist-- and having Atheists in the party-- is nothing to apologize for or run from, and I, for one, am not going to play that game.

Either they practice ALL of what Jesus Christ stood for, or they do not represent any part of Christianity. Christianity is not a buffet that they can pick and choose from, while ignoring willful destruction, corruption, money whoring, and the reckless oppression of the sick, weak, & majority.

They also break a Commandment every single day that they live out their lies, and the alleged Religious Leaders who support the Right Wing are guilty of extending and carrying forth the same broken Commandment.

and I will move out of this country when that becomes illegal.

"I'm a friend of Mahatma G." :-)

I have not been offended by any anti-fundie posts I've read on DU. (And I read it A LOT.) In fact, I laugh at the jokes as much as anyone because I know they are usually aimed at the fundies and not "normal" people of faith. Even when someone bashes religion and those who believe in God, I don't take it personally. That's their opinion. It's really not much different then hearing someone bash my favorite football team....to each his own. This is America: Land of the opinionated.

I wish more could see the world the same way. DU, like our individual communities, is something that must be worn like a loose shirt.

If it gets too tight, then it gets uncomfortable.

but i need not get offended by strongly opinionated athiests.

I only get offended when others attempt to shove their religious beliefs down my proverbial throat.

But a civil, rational debate is great!

Don't get me wrong. Even though I'm an atheist I firmly believe in freedom of religion. However I am opposed to the variety of fundamentalism that is taking over the US at this time.

The fundies want to assimilate the US, if not the world. They claim to want freedom of religion, but they mean only their religion--and to hell with anybody else's religion. They wan't to turn our lawbooks, our courts and even our Constitution into an extension of their Bible.

And I mean their warped version of the Bible...the one that is heavy on Leviticus and light on Luke. The one that is full of hellfire and damnation and devoid of love and forgiveness. Their Bible speaks only of a vengeful wrathful God, and nothing of the loving, forgiving Jesus Christ.

This travesty needs to stop before we become another theocracy. This is why I am BUFFY THE FUNDIE SLAYER :kick: