Why do so many on this board demonize Christianity?

I never hear a bad word about athiesm, agnosticism, buddhism, judiasm, islam, shintuism, hinduisim or any other form of religious thought or philosophy. But it seems that a lot of people just hate Christiainity and Christians.

I am a liberal, but also a Christian. If I had to choose (which I don't, actually I don't think I could be a Christian withoug being a liberal), I would choose Christianity.

Why do so many on these boards like to ridicule and insult Christians?

that's all in my take of Christianity--I have no beef with the major sects of Christianity except for the fundamentalist sects.

actions speak very differently.

The Christian Right is Neither <bumper sticker>

We also like to make fun of zionist as well.

just read your blog briefly. I agree, how did Thomas Friedman win the Pullitzer? Did he get beat with the stupid stick since then?

that and the revisionist stick too.

I think he got hit by the 'Faux News' show stick. Glad you liked the blog:)

fundamentalist Christianity.

having been raised a Christian, what I hate are the right wingnuts who hate in the name of Christianity. I never hear a right winger quote Jesus, They seem to prefer the punishing God of the Old Testament.

woooooo.... I think many are just really opposed to it, I try not to say anything if it's simply a religious person, I just can't stand fundies. If you are religious and not fundu I think it's kinda romantic

It's just those with damn Born Again idiots who piss me off, too much like ex smokers..........

has become synonymous with Republican, and that anger just sort of transfers over to Christianity in general. Sort of the way so many people hate Islam because of the actions of a relatively small number of fundamentalists.

That's just my guess. I think it's true in my case, at least occasionally. I do try to watch it, because it really isn't fair to good Christians.

You wrote, "I never hear a bad word about athiesm, agnosticism, buddhism, judiasm, islam, shintuism, hinduisim or any other form of religious thought or philosophy."

1. We don't get atheism, agnosticism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Shintuism, Hinduism or other forms of religion and philosphy shoved in our faces.

2. Although Right-wing Christians may be the larger villains, I wouldn't be quick to let Left-wing Christians off the hook. Where are the thousands of REAL Christians who ought to be publicly denouncing the right-wing wolves? Moreover, I've done some research on Seattle's liberal churches and discovered they've evolved into yet another corporate subsidiary.

So I have little use for Christians - either the Right-wing chickenhawks or the Left-wing sheeple.

"Are you saved?"

It's not Christians. It's those evangelicals who jam their personal beliefs in my face.

Am I saved? Get fucked asshole, it's none of your business!

People look at you like you are a "Satan"-worshipper. Like at any moment you could whip out a knife and cut out their hearts - and thats in liberal New York. Try that in the South or the Midwest. Where would they ever get the idea that atheists are immoral and worship satan despite the fact that Satan is purely a Christian creation and atheists don't believe in Christianity in the first place? Oh I don't know, maybe their religious leaders? Maybe their political leaders? The whole m-f*cking system? Christians obviously don't have that problem in the U.S. seeing as how the country is predominately Christian, but neither do Buddhists, Jews, Shintos or even Muslims. Atheists do. I never have this problem in Japan. When I say I don't believe in any religion, I get treated just like everyone else. It makes no difference to Japanese folks here who for the most part are secular and Japan is a largely safe peaceful country. Meanwhile religionists and believers are committing crimes left and right in the decidedly unsecular U.S. and nobody finds that interesting.

We rip on the Christians because they make life hard for us, thats why. Banning gay marriage? Abortion? Stem-cell research? Contraception? Teaching Creation in schools as science? Censoring art and film? Treating believers of other religions and atheists as 2nd-class citizens? Yeah, these have all been perpetrated at one time or another by Christian fundamentalists.

I will never forget what this ex-President said in 1987 in an interview:

"No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
- George H.W. Bush

And his son is even EVEN WORSE.

Georgia, no less. The only time I come out and say I am an atheist is when the bible thumpers come to my door.

Couldn't have said it better! :you rock:

You are quite right about Japan. There's a lot of tolerance here for other religions (except for Aum Shinrikyo, whose followers are always being chased out of town because the local people don't want to become another Kamikuishiki). Japan learned its lesson about religious fanaticism more than 50 years ago.

Perfectly said. Live in the backwaters of the upper Midwest and I can attest that there is certainly a religious litmus test for just about everything you would want to do publicly in this area. People here are so used to seeing religious monuments on public property, having xmas concerts in schools and saying prayers at government/state functions that they act as if you are carving out their heart if you even hint that it is unconsitutional.

And that doesn't even begin to address the problems I think many religions create. But that is a whole 'nuther thread.

but do you really think ALL Christians look at you like a satan worshiper or want to make life hard for you? some yes, all, no way.

So, in our world here at DU, atheists proslytize just as much or more as fundies.

And, if you have little use for Christians, trust me, it cuts both ways. I try to turn my cheek, but on some people it is just easier to turn my back.

Many times an atheist or agnostic will employ something called a "rational argument" to demonstrate a logical contradiction. Many religious beliefs are logically unsound - including Christianity. Atheists point this out and Christians tend to see it as an attack on their religion, when in fact their religion is contradictory and immoral at its basis to begin with.

The truth hurts. It seems to hurt especially bad for religionists.

I love the terms the Godless come up for people with faith. I also love the posts dripping with sarcasm and smugness.

You can no more prove God doesn't exist than I can prove he does. It requires faith -- or the lack of it in your case. The difference around here is that the Godless get this freaky superiority complex about their beliefs and become quite offensive in the process.

You might want a party without us "religionists," but you will be marginalized like the Greens and never win another national election.

Those who promote this line of attack seek to divide us, not unite us. But as the saying goes, if they want a war, let it begin here.

It is a logical fallacy to require the proof of a negative. In logical discourse, the claimant with the initial positive assertion is under the burden of proof.

The great thing about religion is you can believe or not. If you do, it takes faith. If you don't, it takes the lack of it.

stements regarding it as nothing more than your OPINION.

Until you can prove it, it remains an allegation, nothing more.

I can say whatever I wish. Freedom of religion remains the law of the land despite the hopes of some.

until you are capable of providing evidence to the contrary.

I don't care. You can choose to believe in nothing. But no matter how far back you go in history, something was always there, something created it. Even if you go back to the Big Bang, something created the matter that caused the Bang.

You can choose to think everything emerged spontaneously. Most of us know better.

Provide independently verifiable evidence to support your allegation that "something created it". Also, please provide the independently verifiable evidence to support the allegation that anything needed to be created in the first place.

At this point, all you have is an assumnption that creation is even necessary. Because you have not provided a shred of evidence, this notion does not even rise to the level of the hypothetical.

That which you can't grasp you call science. That which doesn't name itself doesn't exist to you.

Without the evidence, all you have are assumptions and allegations.

I have belief and have no doubts myself. And, since nearly the entire world believe as I do in some form or another, I am OK with you not joining us.

there must be a level of evidence to support it.

For something to be theoretical, much more supporting evidence is required.

The notion of the existance of supernatural beings or that the universe even needed to be created does not even rise to the level of the hypothetical, let alone the theoretical.

You try and set the terms of the debate, the definitions, etc. and then try to gauge things by YOUR standards.

Thankfully, the world doesn't work that way.

The existence of this world, this solar system, this galaxy, etc. are constant evidence of the existence of God. You simply choose NOT to see it.

you folks just tend to kick it over the hard-facts level and believe what you want. Mass delusion is mass delusion...just because a lot of people believe in that same object doesn't mean it exists.

by poster

and in my life my belief in god is MY truth. However, I don't expect anyone else to hold this truth if it is not the truth in their lives. Until you can prove to me that there is no God, I'm going to keep believing what I do. All I want as a liberal christians is the respect I offer you automatically, which is freedom to believe what you want without insult or derision. Is that to hard for the elevated atheist mind or has your anger at the fundamentalists and the asshole minority of the dominant religion of this country.

You are right. Atheists and Agnostics can't really disprove the http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm|Deist> "God". In fact, though I don't agree with it, I have a great deal of respect for Deists (which include Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Albert Einstein and Abraham Lincoln) and their beliefs. Atheists actually have a hard time disproving many things. Including Vishnu, Zeus, Osiris, Xenu, Heaven's Gate, etc.. etc.. But thats not the point. I was referring to the analysis and questioning of the Christian contradictions, hypocracies and atrocities. The God of the Bible, like the pages of the book, is relatively easy to poke holes into. The Bible, ironically, is Christianity's greatest enemy.

By the way, I use the term "religionist" because it refers to people who believe in some sort of religion. What would be a better term? I can't really use "Theist" either because some religions, like Buddhism, don't necessarily believe in a "Supreme Creator". But then again, I don't really have a problem with Buddhism, so maybe that would be a good term...

"Faith", meaning belief that something is true despite lack of convincing evidence, is stupid. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the truth is when the world abandoned reason and free-thought for "blind faith", it was thrown into the midst of a Dark Age where progress (well except military progress) was largely stifled in the face of rampant war. Do I think "reason" is superior to "faith"? Yep. You bet. Sorry, "faith" is not going to cure diseases and solve world hunger, "reason" will. If thats a "Superiority Complex" then color me complex.

Yes, you are probably right that a completely secular party would probably has no chance of winning an election, currently in the U.S. Though I hope that will change eventually. But all I really want right now is just a party that does not base policy on religious belief. (i.e. gay marriage).

And people wonder how we get the reputation as a party that dislikes religion.

Faith, as they say, can move mountains. And it has. Tons of scientific discoveries have been made not on evidence, but faith. A belief that something exists or should or might or could. It took faith for JFK to say we would reach the moon. It took reason to accomplish it.

"Reason" is good tempered by faith. Faith is also good tempered by reason. My religion believes the Lord helps those who help themselves. If I am sick and simply pray rather than go to the doctor, my guess is God would think that is pretty stupid.

As for curing hunger, there are a hell of a lot more people of faith out there helping than folks of reason. Those of reason see how large a problem it is and tend not to be bothered. Those of faith see the horror and are moved to action even if they only save a few.

I know you represented it as 3 periods, but here it is again:

"'Faith', meaning belief that something is true despite lack of convincing evidence, is stupid."

Please address my definition of faith, or if you dislike it, give your definition, and then we can progress. Thanks :)

As for evidence, don't you consider your own existence evidence?

You don't really have an argument. Science does not work based on faith but based on observation and experiementation. The validity of the hypothesis is then either validated or invalidated by the evidence. No faith involved. If a hypothesis turns out not to be supported by the evidence, its not particularly productive to just continue believing in spite of the lack of convincing evidence. When Kennedy made his declaration, he was making it with the knowledge that we had reached a reasonable level of technological advancement that would allow us to reach the moon in the near future. It was reasonable for him to believe that. If he had declared he believed that we would reach the Andromeda Galaxy by the end of the century, then that would be a declaration based on faith, because there was no evidence of the likeliness of that event. By the way, it was science and logic that put a man on the moon. No amount of praying is going to do it. By the way, how exactly does faith "temper" reason? What would happen if reason went "untempered" by faith?

"As for curing hunger, there are a hell of a lot more people of faith out there helping than folks of reason."

Errrr... I would hope that everyone is in one way or another a "folk of reason". I'd also like to add that people who believe in religion outnumber non-religious people by a significant amount, which might explain that particular phenomenon. As far as I know, secularists are no less inclined to donate to charities and volunteer than the religious.

Science does indeed work on faith and theory. Except you all call it hypothesis, but it's basically one scientific wild assed guess.

Science told us that the world was flat and you'd fall off the edge. Science told us that Earth was the center of the universe.
Science told us that the moon was made of cheese.

Then science changed its mind. Now who knows what next "hypothesis" will be disproved.

You are most wrong about Kennedy. He made a political declaration. He made a gamble. He rolled the dice. He had faith. He was no scientist. Even with all of that, we barely made it in time for his goal.

Reason untempered by faith would result in a world run by scientists and lack art and beauty and love. You can live there if you want, but most of us choose not to.

As for the last, it sure seems like there are a lot more religious charities than secular ones.

"Science does indeed work on faith and theory. Except you all call it hypothesis, but it's basically one scientific wild assed guess."

Errr, first of all, science is simply a methodical process of understanding the world around us. The scientific "Method" consists roughly of the following steps:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a falsifiable theory that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the theory to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
5. Modify the theory in the light of your results.
6. Go to step 3.

Yes, the original hypothesis might be a "wild assed guess", but that hypothesis must eventually be tested with experimentation and/or observation. A hypothesis, "wild-assed guess" or not, can then either be accepted, refined or discarded based on the evidence collected. It in no way is based or requires faith. You are wrong about that. It does work on theory, but a "theory" in science is not a "wild-assed guess". It is based on a considerable amount of evidence and experimentation.

Do you see anything wrong with the above process for understanding the world around us? If so, can you explain a better way?

"Science told us that the world was flat and you'd fall off the edge. Science told us that Earth was the center of the universe.
Science told us that the moon was made of cheese."

Errr, wow. I'm at a loss for words. Considering the Scientific Method wasn't even officially around until http://galileo.imss.firenze.it/multi/redi/eopere.html|Francesco Redi>, an Italian physician in 1668 used a primitive version of it to prove that maggots came from flies and did not http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.html|spontaneously generate> out of nowhere. I hope we can agree that the above misconceptions pre-date any type of formal sense of the word "science". It was simply misconceptions based on observation. The earth was observed to be flat, the sun is observed to revolve around the earth and the moon is observed to be made of cheese. As I demonstrated above, simple observation and hypothesis does not constitute "science". Again, without science and experimentation, how are we supposed to find out that these observations were wrong?

"You are most wrong about Kennedy. He made a political declaration. He made a gamble. He rolled the dice. He had faith. He was no scientist. Even with all of that, we barely made it in time for his goal."

Its like saying we won World War II because Roosevelt made a declaration on a risky decision and stuck it through. No, we won the war because our good men and boys gave their lives for the country and killed lots of enemies. Roosevelt can hope and pray all he wants, if it wasn't for our fine military and strategy we wouldn't have won. You make it sound like John F. Kennedy researched the physics and engineering behind space travel and built the rocket all by himself by just willing it to be so. No, he issued a declaration and the multitude of astronomers, engineers and physicists at NASA who studied and used the theories and experiments of the astronomers, engineers and physicists before them to develop a system for landing a man on the moon and bringing him back to Earth safely.

Speaking of gambling, anyone knows that consistently successful gamblers use a complicated system involving mathematics and probabilities to give themselves a statistical advantage, however small it may be. Going by faith in gambling, more often than not, is going to make you broke. At the very least, it will just make you break even.

"Reason untempered by faith would result in a world run by scientists and lack art and beauty and love. You can live there if you want, but most of us choose not to."

Are you seriously implying that scientists don't love or appreciate beauty and art? Or that one needs faith to love?

You don't really have an argument. Science does not work based on faith but based on observation and experiementation. The validity of the hypothesis is then either validated or invalidated by the evidence. No faith involved. If a hypothesis turns out not to be supported by the evidence, its not particularly productive to just continue believing in spite of the lack of convincing evidence. When Kennedy made his declaration, he was making it with the knowledge that we had reached a reasonable level of technological advancement that would allow us to reach the moon in the near future. It was reasonable for him to believe that. If he had declared he believed that we would reach the Andromeda Galaxy by the end of the century, then that would be a declaration based on faith, because there was no evidence of the likeliness of that event. By the way, it was science and logic that put a man on the moon. No amount of praying is going to do it. By the way, how exactly does faith "temper" reason? What would happen if reason went "untempered" by faith?

"As for curing hunger, there are a hell of a lot more people of faith out there helping than folks of reason."

Errrr... I would hope that everyone is in one way or another a "folk of reason". I'd also like to add that people who believe in religion outnumber non-religious people by a significant amount, which might explain that particular phenomenon. As far as I know, secularists are no less inclined to donate to charities and volunteer than the religious.

and I'd say you have a lot of faith in the power of reason, amongst other things

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the truth is when the world abandoned reason and free-thought for "blind faith", it was thrown into the midst of a Dark Age where progress (well except military progress) was largely stifled in the face of rampant war.

The "truth" you speak of is nothing of the kind. The "Dark Ages" were a period of great inventions, and was far more peaceful than this century just past.

So much for the power of reason.

Do I think "reason" is superior to "faith"? Yep. You bet. Sorry, "faith" is not going to cure diseases and solve world hunger, "reason" will. If thats a "Superiority Complex" then color me complex.

If I remember correctly, you defined faith as "belief that something is true despite lack of convincing evidence", so I assume you have "convincing evidence". I mention this because "cure diseases" and "solve world hunger" are far from "convincing". For one, world hunger has yet to be solved by anything, and diseases have been cured by fortunate accidents as often as by reason, and much of our medical tradition has yet to be tested by reason. In fact, there is a recent move to "result-based studies", which seek to determine if specific medical procedures actually help. Funny how "reason" has led us to spend billions of dollars on medical procedures when we don't even know if they really help.

Truly convincing evidence would look at both the good and bad of both faith and reason. You have done nothing of the kind. For someone who touts the power of reason, you ought to practice it more carefully.

"Faith, as they say, can move mountains. And it has."

Er literally? No it hasn't.

"Tons of scientific discoveries have been made not on evidence, but faith."

Name one. Furthermore name one that requires faith to justify itself.

"As for curing hunger, there are a hell of a lot more people of faith out there helping than folks of reason. Those of reason see how large a problem it is and tend not to be bothered. Those of faith see the horror and are moved to action even if they only save a few."

I agree. However, there are also people of faith standing in the way of the rational. Birth control for example.

Do you think reason created such a wonder? Or was it faith that envisioned such a wonder?

Chisels. The mechanical action of a chisel is well known and described by science.

Reason does not deny wonder.

The faithful seem keen to claim that their faith is the reason for all wonder. I politely disagree.

Was in the man. He didn't just reason it out. He had faith. JFK had faith we could reach the moon. The Rev. Martin Luther King had faith my people would gain civil rights.

People can do things. They do things. Other people look upon them and wonder.

Personally I find the temples of Cambodia pretty fantastic. Is that the same wonder that inhabited MLK? If not what puts it there?

I postulate that it's native. We all have the ability to create wonder. Nothing faith based required.

Faith gives us strength and power to do the seemingly impossible. If you don't believe in it, that is fine. But most of us do.

You think faith gives you that power. It does not mean that it does.

You can disagree and not believe. I believe. Far and away most Americans believe. Far and away most people in the world believe.

If you choose not to, that's fine by me. Just don't go try and tell me I am wrong.

Don't legislate based on your faith.

See the problem? Because of this majority "faith" thing, reason can and is being overidden.

Faith is the basis for many of my beliefs. If I vote to legislate based on my beliefs, faith is part of it. You can't separate it out as much as you try. Just as your lack of faith is part of your beliefs.

which is the difference between LEFT WING and RIGHT WING christians. Don't apply their actions to all christians and there's no problem. see?

and the former can't stop them.

see?

Since faith is antithetical to proof, one cannot expect anybody else to accept that which you have faith in.

In fact, if supernatural beings such as gods had more than alleged existance and were more than myths, faith would be obsolete. By definition, the proof would make faith an unecessary component of religion.

... that is not what necessarily makes the sunset beautiful.

Reason CAN deny wonder, and you showed as much with your comment about chisels. The description of Mt. Rushmore by the original poster was a description of INSPIRATION. Your replacement of that inspiration with the merely mechanical action of a chisel is precisely a denial of wonder with reason (or science).

I am well-trained in sciences and mathematics, holding a degree in engineering. But I also realize that the beauty of the universe around us, as well as the beauty that can come from within us through works of art, cannot be explained by reason. I look at the starry sky on a clear night and do not see a bunch of physical laws -- but rather sit in awe of it, reveling in its pure grandeur. And I realize that it is something that is so much bigger than I am.

That is where the idea of "faith" comes from. There is so much more in our existence -- both outside and inside of ourselves -- that cannot be explained away adequately through pure "reason". That is not to say that reason does not have its place -- but reliance on "reason" as the complete basis of your interpretation of the greater world around (and within) you is probably just as dangerous as relying on "faith". While reason can help us understand how the world around us "works", it cannot provide the morality necessary for putting such understanding to use. Likewise, while "faith" can help provide for us the basis of morality, if it is devoid of reason, it does not provide a true guidance for living in the greater world.

I pretty much agree but have a sneaky suspicion that when humans are confronted with "unknowables" they are happy to abandon reason in favour of faith. This does not mean there is not a reasonable explanation for things, rather we can't yet find it.

My major concern is the extrapolation from faith based positions. That in my view is dangerous and leads people in a direction contrary to reason. The balance is lost.

There's only one serious bone of contention for me

"While reason can help us understand how the world around us "works", it cannot provide the morality necessary for putting such understanding to use"

But that's for another thread or day. I believe that reason can be used to explain moral behaviour

Many people feel something more to this world that they cant explain or prove. That is the basis of faith. They know it to be there but cannot show that it is, and so must believe.

Blind Faith no, questions should always be asked, if only for the sake of better understanding the world and universe you live in.

I don't color you complex, I color your arguments simple and derrogatory and without respect for the sincere beliefs held by people. You respect the many great deist thinkers, but then deride them as illogical?

Faith won't solve the world's problems but its not meant to and never was. There is a place for both reason and faith in the world, too bad that some (on both sides) cannot respect the views of the other

"I love the terms the Godless come up for people with faith..." ...

The term 'Godless' is not new, and has in fact been used to denote those who are deemed evil for thousands of years ....

The 'Godless' ...

The 'Heathen' ...

The 'Savage' ...

The 'Godless' were declared so in open public squares prior to Auto Da Fe ...

The 'Godless' of foriegn lands are declared 'savage' and 'heathen', just prior to their widespread pillage and massacre ...

This is historical fact ....

As an atheist: I am 'Godless" in MANY ways ...

I have no YHWH ...

I have no Jesus ...

I have no Allah ...

I have no Vishnu ...

I have no Shiva ...

I have no Marduk ...

I have no Horus ...

In short: I have NONE of the THOUSANDS of supposedly 'real' deities identified over the centuries of human culture as 'god' ...

I would venture to guess that most of the people of the world would explain you as 'godless' .... since you do not accept THEIR gods as real ...

PLEASE note: This atheist has said nothing untoward or controvesial against any faith in many a month .... Your assertion that DU is itself "antichristian" is completely and utterly false, and demeans this forum as a whole ...

DU is .... F R E E .....

It's users are FREE to editorialize thier thoughts in any way that does not violate forum rules ...

ANTI christian threads must make up an entire 0.0001 % of all threads ....

To debase all of DU, for 0.0001 % of its content is asking too much, dont you think ??? ....

I would ask that you consult the Canon on the meaning of the term "Godless" ... and consult the present and future condition of those depicted .... Christian theology has as special place for the godless ....

Funny thing is: I wear the epithet "Godless" as a badge of honor ....

So : insult away ....

Demonize the Godless ....

The rational world and the spiritual realm are two very different places. Most people throughout human history didn't require religion to make logical sense; mythos and mysticism speak to something deeper than logic. For example, the purpose of Zen koans (the "what is the sound of one hand clapping" stuff) is to confound and break through the limits of ordinary cognition. Any Zennie can tell you that if you can "make sense" of a koan, you don't get it.

The notion that religion is supposed to be rational or logical is a relatively recent one. And, unfortunately, "logical" religion tends to be really bad religion.

and you wonder why they get insulted.

Your version of the "truth" does not take into the many facts of faith and belief that cause so many perfectly rational and logical people to espouse theistic beliefs. Or would you consider Stephen Hawking, Franklin Roosevelt, Mahatma Ghandi, Thomas Jefferson or Martin Luther King Jr. to be loony religionists.

You couch your argument and your glorious crusade for truth in nothing but absolutes and insults...what does that remind me off? Oh wait, the asshole evangelical fundies. Nice!

cheek.:evilgrin:

Mainstream Christianity is letting extremist wingnuts set the agenda on homosexuality, abortion, contraception, creationism, and the establishment clause of the first amendment. I recongnize the value in being meek and nonjudgemental, but sometimes you have to stand up and say "Hey, Jesus never condemned homosexuality!" or "The theory of evolution does not contradict Christianity!" or "Any bishop who protected child molesters should go to jail!"

I don't like extremists of any religion or creed, but so far no Muslim has lobbied to have "Under Allah" inserted in the pledge of allegiance, and I haven't heard of any Hindus trying to change our national motto from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In Vishnu we trust".

And I still hold a little bit of a grudge for converting my ancestors at swordpoint, but I'm learning to let that one slide.

you don't want christianity 'shoved in your face', but then in your next point you criticize liberal crhistians for not saying anything about the right or about their beliefs. They don't say anything because they don't believe in ramming their beliefs down the throats of others.

You paint with a mighty broad brush there

And people here don't realize how much Christian faith plays a role in the lives of many people (especially Black people) and it's a BIG turn off when people bash your religion. The Democratic Party will never survive if they feel bashing Christians is a good practice.

We have right wing Christians and left wing Christians on these DU boards. 'Tis the right wing christian that want these fire fights to incite and to disrupt.

The democratic party will surivive this obvious pettiness it always has and always will. No Christian is being bashed. 'Tis the poster that hides behind Christianity and the tact that is being bashed.

~Peace~

And since it happens a lot here, the perpetrators are driving a wedge between religious people and those less so.

If I call Pat Robertson an evil bastard, he screams persecution and hopes to get sympathy from Christians who wouldn't ordinarily agree with him.

If I call Bernard Law a pimp and Pope John Paul a doddering misogynist fool, people will accuse me of attacking Catholics. No, I'm attacking your leaders. That's no more anti-Catholic than attacks on Bush are anti-American.

I have no problem with what you, personally, believe. But I do have a problem when you defend evil people just because they claim to share the same faith as you.

And bash HIM all you want. Bu don't bash all of those who follow Christianity. As for bashing the pope, it is I believe quite different. The pope IS part of the Catholic Church. To bash him is such a nasty way as you have just done IS intolerant of Catholics.

Like the kings of old (or the GW Bush of today), Pope John Paul is both a man and a symbol. So if he does something unquestionably evil - like his opposition to birth control - we still can't criticize him because attacking him is attacking all Catholics.

Sorry, I don't buy it. We can't let evil people hide behind the Bible.

Look, I support birth control, but evil? You must be lost in the land of hyperbole.

How many third world women die in childbirth because the Catholic Church pressured their governments to ban condoms?

How many more Africans are going to die of AIDS because of the official church position that condoms do not prevent the transmission of HIV?

I'd call that evil.

But if you don't, what do you think about protecting child molesters from prosecution and putting them in positions where they could abuse again?

Tinoire gave a much better explanation about why birth control is not the magic bullet for ending African AIDS than I ever could. It is pretty complex, but you might look for it in the archive. Or contact him personally.

However, condoms do NOT prevent all births or all STDs. Abstinance does and monogamy can (depending on past experiences). So if you really want to promote something, why not try that?

As for the last, I would have prosecuted and I still would where possible. However, you do have to understand the right of confession before you go assuming all Catholic church men are guilty of great sins.

But that does not excuse lying about it or making it into a moral issue based on patriarchal thinking.

It is also a healthcare issue, a governmental issue and probably even a military issue. Sex cuts across every aspect of our society. But at its foundation it includes the choice whether or not to have sex and that is a moral choice.

Say I decide to:

have sex that is not for procreation;

have sex with someone that is not my wife;

have sex with someone who is the same gender.

What gives someone else the right to label me as moral or immoral?

We each decide for ourselves. Every group decides what it considers moral. Every society does the same.

That's the way it works. If you cheat on your spouse, personally, I would think you immoral. If I am forced to deal with you, I will do so if it is a part of work, but socially I would not. I choose to NOT associate with such activity.

has very little influence in areas outside of latin america these days. Granted the church is growing in Africa, but it is still a very weak player there. How many more africans will die because George Bush and other western leaders are ignoring the problem of AIDS in Africa, to pin blame solely or primarily on the catholic church is ludicrous.

and calling him a misogyinistic doddering fool. The difference is legitimate criticism vs. name calling and bashing.

We have no problem calling GW Bush names on this forum. He deserves it. Why one set of rules for government politicians, but a different set for religious leaders?

religious or not.

and no we don't hide behind our religion, but incessant bashing of it does wonders. Imagine if half the things said about christians here were said about non-christians...they'd likely be banned in moments

As much as it is a demonization of the face of Christianity that has been has been so vocally inserting itself into the political spectrum lately, which tends to be the fundamentalist, born-again, evangelical, "if you ain't like us, you're going to hell", kind of Christianity that is demonized.

In case you haven't noticed, there is a socio-political movement affoot that is trying to break down the wall of separation between church and state.

Sometimes there is some generalization going on and there might be a couple of rabid anti-Christian posters, but for the most part it's simply a matter of people getting tired of the same religious right wingers that represent the very worst aspects of they claim to be Christianity to the masses.

As a gay man who grew up in a Southern Baptist household, I have experienced the kind of "Christianity" that people rail against that call me a sinner doomed to hell and do everything in their power to make my life a bit harder to live when they are not saying I deserve to die of AIDS or that I am some kind sexual monster who molests aborted babies.

Criticism of the forces that are trying to turn our country in an American style taliban should not be mistaken for blanket hatred and ridicule of ALL Christians.

ground back towards the rational. Howard Dean on Hardball tonight said that we can win by making The argument about "Education, Healthcare and Jobs, instead of Tax cuts for the rich, guns, abortion, god and gays" Take back "God" from the right wing!!!

The question that progressive thinking people of faith should ask themselves is "Is my faith strong enough to withstand a minor onslaught from points of view not far from my own when the extreme members of my faith look to remake my country in their own image?"

The fact is religion has dominated western thought for centuries MAINLY because the church was able to aggressively and violently squelch dissent. Nowadays I can’t be (legally) burned at the stake for suggesting that the god of Christianity seems to be a bit of a bloodthirsty tyrant. As a Christian, ask yourself this: What is the Christ to me? What does the story ACTUALLY mean? When you come to terms with that, you might realize that the moral is more important than the story itself and the STORY is what is used to repress, restrict and hurt those that don't agree with it. Most people agree with the moral


liberal_vetern said:

"As a gay man who grew up in a Southern Baptist household, I have experienced the kind of "Christianity" that people rail against that call me a sinner doomed to hell and do everything in their power to make my life a bit harder to live when they are not saying I deserve to die of AIDS or that I am some kind sexual monster who molests aborted babies."


According to the bible, the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy. Yet Lib_Vet and countless others have been caused pain by those that miss THE MORAL and use the story to achieve an end.
It is my hope that Democratic, progressive thinking Americans of ALL stripes, of all faiths and of all personal ethical predilections can strive together for a future that is governed by the desire to improve the condition of their fellow man, INSTEAD OF STRICTLY the improvement of the bottom line or the filling of a collection plate or the pointless pronouncement of dubious piety.

As a Christian, ask yourself this: What is the Christ to me? What does the story ACTUALLY mean? When you come to terms with that, you might realize that the moral is more important than the story....

You hit the nail on the head. I grew up Protestant, but since have come to Unitarian Universalism. In doing so, I feel that I have actually learned more about being a good Christian than I ever did in mainstream Christianity. Why? Because I have come to the conclusion that the importance of Jesus was not the story, but his life. Mainstream Christianity seems to get so consumed by the deification of Christ, that they lose sight of the true teachings, which were all about how we should live our lives and treat one another.

The answers aren't in one sect, necessarily -- nor are they to be found strictly from looking to religious texts such as the Bible. Personally, I think that the Quakers were more right-on about this than many other groups in advocating that our morality comes from taking the time and effort to look within ourselves -- and that God will inevitably speak to us through our own hearts.

Some heal, some don't.

told me that my precious children would go to hell if they weren't saved. They were 4 and 1 at the time.

A lot of people have scars from their run-in with fundamentalism.

It really doesn't matter if those scare are ones that have healed or not. They should never have been had in the first place. Christianity in America today, whether fundamentalist or otherwise, is so far removed from the teachings of Jesus that Christians ought to be ashamed of calling themselves Christians (followers of Christ).

Was Christ a capitalist? Did Christ own property? Did Christ feel that it wasn't his problem if people were old, disabled, or poor and couldn't take care of their own needs? What would Christ say about NAFTA? What would Christ say about the World Bank? Come to think of it, what would Christ have said about the way the settlers at Jamestown or the Pilgrims at Plymouth behaved? Or what would Christ have said about the way Columbus and the Spanish conquistadors that followed him behaved? What would Christ have said about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What would Christ say about Iraq?

From what I've read in the gospels, Christ would have driven all those (Christian) money changers out of the temple in no time flat. And from what I've seen in my lifetime, if Christ were alive right now in the USA, Christians would crucify him.

and you wonder why some christians get offended at that?

The things you rail against "Christians" for in your second paragraph, aren't so true as you'd think. Look at the Christians on this board to see people who follow the true and liberal message of christ. The christians of today wouldnt recognize Jesus, but that doesn't mean all christians are to blame or should be attacked for their beliefs. DO you understand what I'm saying?

The christians of today wouldnt recognize Jesus, but that doesn't mean all christians are to blame or should be attacked for their beliefs. DO you understand what I'm saying?

I understand that you would like to separate yourself from those Christians who wouldn't recognize Christ, but you still call yourself a Christian and you still extend Christian fellowship to co-religionists with whom you have philosophical difficulties. So, is Christian unity more important to you than Christian teachings?

Some folks here (and I'm not necessarily including you) would like to toss out the word "bigotry" in an attempt to silence those of us who aren't fond of what we see in Christianity and Christians. You might want to read this in its entirety, but here's a sample: http://www2.whidbey.com/jerod/jcram.htm



Brother, we do not wish to destroy your religion or take it from you. We only want to enjoy our own.

Brother, you say you have not come to get our land or our money, but to enlighten our minds. I will now tell you that I have been at your meetings and saw you collect money from the meeting. I can not tell what this money was intended for, but suppose that it was for your minister; and, if we should conform to your way of thinking, perhaps you may want some from us.

Brother, we are told that you have been preaching to the white people in this place. These people are our neighbors. We are acquainted with them. We will wait a little while and see what effect your preaching has upon them. If we find it does them good, makes them honest, and less disposed to cheat Indians, we will then consider again of what you have said.

Me personally, I am a Jew and frankly I regard some members of my own tribe as stellar pains in the ass!

I think the ISSUES that get collapsed when this conversation arises are:

Separation of church and state versus people having a right to promote candidates likely to vote on their issues. The right has done a great job at MAKING religion an issue in politics. This leads to resentment from those that wish a more secular life and government.


As a Jew, allow me to say that Jesus and his teachings are fine and even represent a huge possibility for humanity, but like Wesley Clark and Howard Dean, some of his followers are simply annoying.

It may be our own faults for not speaking up more and showing that there is a difference. After all "let your light so shine so that all may see."

because it has been the source of a majority of the world's suffering. What has religion bestowed on the world except for guilt, war, and a little pacifier to suck on when you're afraid?

the world? I agree that religion is responsible for a lot of suffering, but is also responsible for a lot of good. To not be able to see both is not live in reality in my mind.

Example one: St. Francis
Example two: The Catholic worker
Example three: Renassaince Art and music
Example four: Bishop Desmond Tutu
Example five: Archbishop Oscar Romero

Now, just as easily I can give you five examples of bad things religion is responsible for, but I think you need to be able to see both sides.

I thought only fundamentalist and conservatives saw things in such black and white.

...to try to understand what exactly people are talking about when they use generalizations instead of assuming they are just anti-Christian bashing for the fun of it?

The problem is you are reacting to the reaction of the progressive even handed people to the "in your face" froth at the mouth fundamentalist right wingers that are currently attacking the wall of separation of church and state in everything from trying to get so-called creation science taught in schools to banning medical stem cell research to making gays and lesbians second class citizens.

I am sorry you are taking the generalizations personally, but it seems these days that the most vocal and active form of Christianity in current events is the right wing fundie sect that is trying to turn this country into a Christian nation (and not in a good way).

In other words, just take the chip off your shoulder, take a step back and try to understand exactly what kind of "Christianity" the people who are offending you so are criticising. It's not your brand of Christianity. They aren't talking about you. They are talking about the Falwells and Robertson's and Phelp's and Ralph Reed types who use their so-called faith as an excuse to oppress others. When people are oppressed, they fight back and say mean things about their oppressors. That's just life.

If you read through this thread, you'll see that there are a number of posts that demonstrate an extreme level of hostility towards religion in general, and Christianity in particular. Just read some of Walt Starr's comments.

The assumption that religion is good is part of the problem between believers and doubters/nonbelievers. Some who feel that religion is per se a good thing do look down on or feel sorry for those with no belief, and sometimes they do treat nonbelievers as second-class citizens (see some of the anecdotes people here post); in addition, many Christian believers in this country want religion -- their religion -- in the public sphere. This is necessarily difficult for nonbelievers (not to mention for non-Christian believers), some of whom feel that religion is not automatically "good" or that it is actively harmful. But the latter view is not necessarily hostility to religion in the sense that those who claim persecution use. How is a nonbeliever to enjoy the freedom to follow his conscience if he must tacitly or actively endorse a religious view? The effort by nonbelievers to maintain separation of church and state is not persecution of religion. It is support of a system created in this nation that allows each of us to follow our wishes and consciences where religion and morality are concerned. Even if you believe that you are in a special caste before God because of your religious beliefs, you are not superior to the nonbeliever under the law. Separation of church and state preserves the equality of each citizen under the Constitution.

There is outright hostility on both sides, I agree. I often feel in my own experience that stating that I am an agnostic is viewed as threatening to the beliefs of Christians I know, as if I am actively undermining them by not sharing the beliefs that are so important to them. Hence, I receive all kinds of books, emails, and suggestions from these people (who are people I love and respect) that I would just as soon not receive. I have never tried to "convert" anyone to my point of view, though I will answer their questions if asked, nor have I mocked a belief, even one I find absurd. What comes back at me is something close to a panicky insistence. I understand that they fear for my soul. But it's my business (I don't say "my soul" because that's a concept I'm not sold on). I will always object to being forced to follow behaviors or say words that support the religious point of view, because it's not a view I share. I know very good "religious" people and very good people who are not religious. I've seen religion's positive effects, but I don't assume that religion is good, because I've seen more effects that I consider negative. But I don't consider myself "hostile" to religion.

I also think it is somewhere between disingenuous and thin-skinned for American Christians to claim that those who disagree with them are persecuting them. Persecution is what happens to Christians in China, not the upholding of our constitutional framework here. Not all American believers are completely free from harrassment and hostility (think swastikas painted on synagogues), but not having God in the Pledge of Allegiance or the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is a far cry from that.

JMO, of course.

isn't insulting and meant to be so?

was that necessary? Absolutely not, it was just thrown in to be rude. Tell me what good or or greater understanding can be had by associating all christians with scared babies?

I grew up in a town with 2 count em 2 fundie cults, a southern babitist church, a presbyrterian church, a methodists church, two catholic churches and batist chruch. You *really* think I don't understand and hate the message of the christian right? They used to block the hallways to my high school and stand out in front of it with posters of aborted fetuses (not something to settle one's stomach before that first period test). I understand the hatred of that. What I don't get is being lumped in with those people because I am nothing like them. I am more like you.

and that religion has somehow saved man from his sins. As far as I am concerned, democracy has saved mankind from religion.

What would famous, generous, loving Christians have done without Jesus? Had not Jesus lived, would they be a murderous louts? Don't think so.

Did Christianity give the world renaissance art and music, or did the world give it to Christianity? 'Renaissance' is the rebirth of ideas of ancient Greece, hundreds of years before Christ. Perhaps without the heavy hand of religion these ideas would not have to wait 1600 years to be reborn.

Perhaps.

Even if there hadn't been any Christian Church, dn't you think we'd still have had wars like the Crusades during the Middle Ages, or would all have been peaceful.

You don't credit Christianity for anything good that happened in relation to it, saying it would have happened anyway, but you also maintain that the bad things they did would NOT have happened if it weren't for Christianity.

the renaissance came through the patronization of the chruch and wealthy italian mercahnts all of whom were catholic, and the northern renaissance later bloomed under protestant influences. THe reason for the dark ages was not christianity or its control it was the fall of the roman empire and the HUGE power vacuum that created.

Good people would be good with or without christ, as is evidenced by the fact that good people exist in all religions and among athesits and agnostics.

Platonic Philosophy-As in this world is but a shadow of the greater world waiting in heaven. No need fto concern yourself with the needs of this world. What happened to the Noblese Oblige?

The Dark Ages (name of the top of your head five great inventions in Western civilzation from the fall of Constantinople to the rise of the Renaissance)

The Holy Inquisition-Where thousands of men, women and children were murdered as witches.

The total subjection of woman as second class human beings.

The torture, killing and harassment of great men of science such as Giordano Bruno, Da Vinci, Galileo, Harvey etc, etc, etc.

Pope Pius XII, who did nothing while Jews were kidnapped from in front of the Vatican gates.

Platonic philosohpy - you've got it all wrong. Platonic philosophy does not depend on a Heaven, nor does it encourage an attitude of "No need to concern yourself with the needs of this world"

Dark Ages - water wheel, windmill, crossbow, timepieces, (give me time, I'll come up with more)

Inquisition - not about witches. It was about political power, which at the time, was based on religion, as it was in almost every other nation of the time, and which did not always result in Inquisitions.

The total subjection of woman as second class human beings - Good thing that never happens in non-religious based cultures.

The torture, killing and harassment of great men of science such as Giordano Bruno, Da Vinci, Galileo, Harvey etc, etc, etc. - Again, good thing that never happens in non-religious based cultures.

Pope Pius XII, who did nothing while Jews were kidnapped from in front of the Vatican gates. - as opposed to what our non-religious leaders did for them (ie nothing, at best. Sending Jewish refugees back to Hitler when they weren't at their "best")

Now let's review the wonders of secularism

China's Great Famine - an estimated 30 million died

Nuclear weapons - how many died, and how many millions more continue to live under it's threat

French Revolution - committed in the name of Reason. Many were murdered brutally.

Biological weapons - another golden acheivement

Racial profiling

Platonic Philosophy-As in this world is but a shadow of the greater world waiting in heaven. No need fto concern yourself with the needs of this world. What happened to the Noblese Oblige?
Platonic, from Plato....you mean that greek guy who died centuries before Christianity ever started?

The Dark Ages (name of the top of your head five great inventions in Western civilzation from the fall of Constantinople to the rise of the Renaissance)
The dark ages were not a result of Christianity being in charge but rather a result of the fall of the roman empire and in which there was a mini ice-age, a series of plagues and wars that had nothing at all to do with religion (hundred years war).
1. the heliocentric model of the solar system
2. the telescope
3. the university system
4. The writings of Dante, Machiavelli, Chaucer and others
5. The idea of crop rotation

The Holy Inquisition-Where thousands of men, women and children were murdered as witches.
no one is going to argue that as an abysmal case of abuse by the church. But it wasn't witches it was protestants and jews.

The total subjection of woman as second class human beings.
actually very early on the majority of christians were women who then converted their husbands and lovers. Jesus' message about women as equal beings was very attractive to women. Unfortunately as religion grew and men grabbed hold of control they used it as another (not the only though) tool to subjegate women.

The torture, killing and harassment of great men of science such as Giordano Bruno, Da Vinci, Galileo, Harvey etc,
and what of the support they offered many great scientists too?

Pope Pius XII, who did nothing while Jews were kidnapped from in front of the Vatican gates.
That's pretty much bunk actually, DemBones DemBones has some great links if you'd like to read that refute that

Example one: St. Francis
Example two: The Catholic worker
Example three: Renassaince Art and music
Example four: Bishop Desmond Tutu
Example five: Archbishop Oscar Romero

Shall I post a list of fine people and fine things for which Christianity cannot take credit?

Certainly St. Francis was a good person, but is it due to his Christianity? Are there not many people who have accomplished as much as he but were not Christians? And as for the Renaissance art and music, who knows what might have been produced if it weren't for the Catholic Pope insisting that whatever was produced would serve to glorify Catholicism... or else he'd yank his patronage and excommunicate the artist.

Now, whether the good of Christianity outweighs the bad is for a philosopher to decide, I suppose. The difficulty I have is that Christians tend to cite the good and ignore the bad... as you just did.

Now, just as easily I can give you five examples of bad things religion is responsible for, but I think you need to be able to see both sides.

OK... that's human. What have Christians done to make reparation or restitution for the bad that has been done in the name of Christianity? Not much, it seems. I submit that Christians need to see both sides as well.

What good has religion bestowed on the world except for guilt, war, and a little pacifier to suck on when you're afraid?

What a repulsively ignorant statement.

but thanks for playing

even I'm offended at the shallowness of these kind of comments.

I believe/love God and Jesus, but the aspect of Christianity I don't like is the religions within Christianity. They remind me too much of cults and mind control for the weak-minded, just like those horrible shows on TBN that are right-wing oriented.

that too often when people talk about "Christians" they don't distinguish or think it's a given that they are talking about the Christians In Name Only crowd. I know I am gullty of this from time to time.

and the reason I think that that it's Christianity that seems to get so much 'attention" is becuase it's the Christians In Name Only that are causing so much trouble. It's not that there aren't Conservative Muslims or jews that can't compare with Falwell or Robertson but they don't have the power in this country to enforce those views. The CINO's do. If I lived in india, you would hear me bitching about the stupid hindu and Muslim fundies. But I am here in the US. And for the record, I have not seen a lot of ridcule directed at Christians like the Quakers or the Amish (becuase how often do they do anything bad?)

Oh, one more thing, when looking at "ridcule" be sure that it's maliciouse. in other words, don't take yourself to seriously. On the loung was a poll about the Winter Solstice that talked about dancing naked around a bondfire while sacrificing kittens. Being a Pagan, I may have felt 'ridiculed" if i did not have a sense of humor

But I can see your point. If we can distinguish between Muslinm terrorists and ordinary muslims, surely we can do the same for Christians and CINOs. we need to be more aware of how we say things.

Were he here today, he'd be messin' with their heads
something fierce.

Being a Christian also does not mean you go brain-dead
and play follow-the-leader because someone uses God in every third sentence.

Christians are known by their works. A Christian strives to be Christ-like. Are L'il sprout and his pals Christ-like? Some folks think so, but by Christ's words I can see they are wrong.

While I imagine there may be some genuine Christian haters here, from what I've seen most DUers stick a boot up the rears of the ones what get it wrong. Is that demonising? Maybe. The bible says evil can appear cloaked as good. So what would be wrong with demonising the demonic?

Waren't that just be calling a thing by its proper title?

it's the perversion of Christianity that so many have adopted while proclaiming that THEIR understanding of the Bible is the one and only guide to living a moral life . . . many people who call themselves Christians are about as far from the teachings of Jesus as you can get . . . where Jesus taught love and forgiveness, these so-called Christians live lives full of hate and vengeance . . .

and many are hypocrites, proclaiming that the Bible is THE source for all human morality, but selecting only the passages that suit them to guide their lives . . . they insist, for example, that homosexuality is "an abomination" because the Bible tells them so, and the Bible cannot be wrong . . . well, the same passages that address homosexuality (Leviticus 18:19-23 and Leviticus 20:10-16 -- the so-called "Holiness Code") also prohibit eating raw meat, planting two kinds of seed in the same field, and wearing garments with two different kinds of yarn . . . tattoos, adultery, and sexual intercourse during a woman's menstrual period are similarly outlawed, and the good book also approves quite explicitly of slavery . . . this pick-and-choose reading of the Bible, and the resultant attempts to impose their interpretation and beliefs on others, is what turns a lot of people off . . .

btw, on the issue of homosexuality . . . ask a Christian what Jesus had to say on the topic . . . the answer is "nothing" . . .

Everyone's beliefs get knocked around. All the ones you mentioned, and more. The "victim" card won't buy you any credibility chips on this bus. :nopity:

Why do so many on this board demonize Christianity?

I think a much better question is: Why do so many support Christianity?

Think about it. This is a religion that teaches that mankind is evil, worthless and deserving of eternal damnation in hellfire because a talking snake convinced a young couple to eat some forbidden fruit in a garden long ago. It also teaches that the only "solution" is for us to accept that the invisible entity who started everything, God, had to have his innocent son (who was really God in human form) brutally murdered on a cross to cleanse us of our "sins" so we can go live with said invisible entity for eternity in a magical kingdom after we die.

And the book that is supposedly God's manual for mankind, the Bible, is filled with countless absurdities, atrocities, contradictions and myths. It's so confusing and weird that there are now something like 20,000 denominations and sects within the religion, and each can show you verses from this book to "prove" that it is the One True Religion and that everyone else is blinded by Satan, a nasty creature that God (who supposedly loves us) created for some mysterious reason. One denomination tells us that we are saved by works, while others say we are saved by faith alone. One group says that we must eat a special cracker during a weekly ritual, others say that no cracker is needed. One group says we must be baptised at a young age, another tells us that it doesn't really matter. One group says we must worship on Saturday, while many others say we must worship on Sunday. Still others tell us that Friday is the correct day. And on and on it goes. Wars have literally been fought over these disagreements. Furthermore, the teachings and stories contained in this book provide the basis for virtually all of the homophobia, anti-abortion fanaticism, and anti-science (e.g. evolution, stem cell research etc.) hysteria we see in our society. Not to mention how it was used to support and justify slavery and torture for centuries. This is all very odd, especially when you consider that the supposed author is allegedly perfect in every way.

So why do so many people support such a strange belief system? My own theory is that it's a combinaton of childhood indoctrination and fear. Most people simply can't accept the idea that everything (or nearly everything) that mommy and daddy taught them was wrong, and they definitely don't like the idea that we're nothing more than highly evolved animals living on a tiny, insignificant rock out on the edges of a rather insignificant galaxy that is only one of a hundred billion such galaxies in the known universe. Plus they crave "meaning" and like the idea of life after death even though there isn't a shred of credible evidence to support such a fantastic claim.

I sincerely hope that humanity can move forward and leave primitive nonsense like religion in the past where it belongs, but unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon. Religionists tend to get violent whenever anyone challenges their fantasy (just read a history book or look at bin Ladin), and the sad truth is that they outnumber freethinkers by a huge margin. And sadly, we'll probably all be blown to smithereens someday when a True Believer starts a nuclear war, after being ordered to do so by his god(s), no doubt. I just hope I don't live to see that awful day.

I don't believe that religion is nonsense. Most people need it. But anything beyond introspection and it becomes dangerous. People get together in groups, put medals on their chests and proclaim they're better than you...

The monotheism is mechanically a danger for Mankind

A god speaks and reveals the Truth, if he tells another Truth to somebody else... He's a liard ! Impossible !!! The mess can begin because the "Word of Lord" is unique. Infernal !

just amazed that you could spend so much time and effort posting such a mess of misinterpretation.

Your interpretation of everything is right eh?

Oh I forgot. You're a Christian.

:P

Before this gets out of hand, I'm just messing about. I thought it was a fine post though.

the images at this link help to keep things in "perspective"--and as my father pointed out, if we could magnify the universes that are too small for our puny human vision to see, it would be as vast "in the other direction."

http://wires.news.com.au/special/mm/030811-hubble.htm

religion is something invented by humans to keep them under the illusion that they're at the center of things, that one of their own is at the helm, and that they might actually have communication and influence with that "person."

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

You know, the one that says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"? The first and foremost command that God sent down to Moses at Mt. Sinai (not the "don't kill" one or the "don't make fun of Me" one). Can you truly believe in your religion and not feel that the billions of people, including little children, in India are defying the word of God, and are going to burn in hell forever, for breaking God's leading Commandment, and not feel a need to go convert them over to your side? Even if its for "their own good"?

If so, you are a Good Christian. If not, then you are a part of the problem that is fundamentalism.

But you can have as many as you wish. I do not judge other worship as long as it doesn't engage in practices like human sacrifice or such. (I know of no such current religion, but I could always be surprised.)

to describe his critique of religion?

When I see garbage like this, "I sincerely hope that humanity can move forward and leave primitive nonsense like religion in the past where it belongs, but unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon. Religionists tend to get violent whenever anyone challenges their fantasy (just read a history book or look at bin Ladin), and the sad truth is that they outnumber freethinkers by a huge margin. And sadly, we'll probably all be blown to smithereens someday when a True Believer starts a nuclear war, after being ordered to do so by his god(s), no doubt." I call it like it is.

...would you consider that a critique? No you wouldn't. It would be an insult. Now if I took that a step further and found something about you...oh let's just use your religion for example...and said all people that shared that characteristic with you were also idiots, would that be a critique?

I'm sorry to tell you but you don't have to wear a point hat to be a bigot.

Its only bigotry if it isn't demonstrable. If I say you and all men like you are pigs, it is only bigotry if I can't prove it.

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

and stop trying to be cute.

They cry bigotry because they would rather put critics on the defensive than to have to answer the charges with fact.

We cry bigotry because that's what it is when you spew hate.

I wonder how long before I wake up and find burning Darwin fish on my lawn.

I was going to refute your first two paragraphs but its just not worth going through all the absurdities, stereotypes, half-truths and gratuitous insults contained therein.

So I'll try to adress why this one Christian (and I can't speak for all) believes what he does. And no, it doesn't fit with your narrow minded, holier-than-thou theory.

In my household religion was offered, not mandated. My father, a former Lutheran Preacher who has become a naturalist and agnostic offered his view, my mother, a very liberal catholic who worked in the Call to action movement but has since left the church because of the outrages perpetuated by it in recent years. My sister is an agnostic, and I am a Catholic, but I accept very little of Catholic dogma and the dictates of the church. There is no derision of anyone else's beliefs in my household and no one told us what to believe. I have attended masses and gone to synagouges and mosques. I have studied many different religions and belief structures and I believe not because I need a pacifier or a safety net, or I was scared or indoctrinated but because I have a faith and belief in the best sense of the word. I challenge things and think for myself, I marvel in the goodness of the world and feel that there is something more out there than meets the eye.

I think its incredible that we are a high functioning (by this planet's standards) animal slightly more evolved than those around us on an insignificant rock, and I am in awe of all the other stars with planets and possibilites of life. I dont think God made us only or loves us best, I think God is everywhere, in everything and not the angry violent god of the OT, but something that was there, the spark in the big bang that started everything.

I have faith not because I'm told, or I don't consider the options, or I'm irrational. I see beauty and love in the world and I see something behind that. I know that religion has been used for great evil in the past but I see that it has also been used for great good, and for that reason I want to save its use from those evil men who use it only for their own self aggrandizement and power.

That Creationism thing makes you look like ******, plus the "Have you accepted Jes*s as your Personal Saviour????" thing.

Irritating.

Yes,'irritating' is the sum of my thoughts and feelings re: christians.

Sorry.

Christianity specifically, and all religions in general, are no more or less dependent upon faith in the unseen, populated by obnoxious adherents and zealots, filled with odd and unfathomable strings of alleged logic, prone to abomination in its name, ripe with perfidy and failures of ethics and morality than are politics and various political campaigns. And yet, folks hereabouts hold amazing faith in politics and candidates and deep hatred of Christianity.

It's not the religion that is the problem. It's mankind. We have weak links; we have had them throughout human history. Some people are simply unable to conduct their lives without trying to change, conquer or destroy some part of the population. Religion is never really the issue, it's a rallying point. The real issues are land, wealth and power. Religion is a powerful and effective way to mobilise a force to obtain land, wealth and power.

I am a Roman Catholic. I'm not weak-minded. I don't practice my faith out of fear. I haven't been brainwashed. I've never tried to force my belief on anyone, but rather have had some rude and frankly ingnorant people condemn me and tried to force their opinions of what I should and shouldn't believe on me.

Such a question....

There are probably as many reasons as there are posters with that attitude.

The primary reason is probably simply because it is there. Christianity is the dominant Western religion, and therefore becomes the obvious target when bashing religion. The in-your-face evangelical types don't help the situation, nor do some of the darker incidents in its history.

So, why would anyone want to bother with bashing religion anyway?

There are some who are simply immature and lash out at things they can't or won't understand.

There are others who justifiably see religion smothering them. Everywhere they go they see signs and symbols of that which they do not believe. Even as a Christian, although not a "traditional" one, I get upset at some of the God-blathering that goes on. I can imagine what a non-believer thinks about all of that. It must get annoying after a while.

Many people only see the the televangelists and the ones who wear religion on their sleeves. The ones who ignored Christ's teaching to "not pray in public like the Pharisees" and have to brag about their beliefs being better than yours. Trying to prove they are "better Christians." They don't see the quiet ones who work the trenches in the soup kitchens, prisons, and halfway houses. Who travel to Africa and open hospitals and schools. Who work for peace. Much of this leading from Christ's example and teachings.

Christianity is an evangelical religion, and Christ did exhort us to spread The Word. But, many, if not most, of us believe that The Word is not to be shoved down your throats. Christ also said first to feed the hungry and heal the sick. The Word will pretty much take care of itself.

Good works and charity are not unique to Christianity, of course, but lost in all the public rhetoric is that Christianity is a religion of love, or was supposed to be, and not a religion of hate, divisiveness, and vindictiveness, which it often seems to be.

The Christian religion is meant to be a religion of love, and many, as you say, practice it that way. But Christian fundies are subconsciously motivated by fear and hate, and in recent years fundies have been the most obnoxiously visible group of people calling themselves "Christians." I suspect most people on DU who really hate Christians have been turned off to Christianity by fundies.

The challenge to Christians is not to try to argue people out of a hatred of Christianity. The challenge is to take back Christianity from the fundies. If you don't, it could mean the death of Christianity a few generations from now.

and it is true that in many areas the fundies are growing faster than other sects. In South America, the evangelicals are actually stealing a lot of the population away from the Catholic Church.

But, this has happened many times throughout history. We've had a number of Great Awakenings and religious revivals here in the US and things have eventually evened out. The lunatic fringe tends to burn itself out and can't be sustained for long. Europe has become secular after fatigue from the religious wars.

Many of the evangelicals are really a cult of personality. The mega-churches and TV "ministries" are some roaring preacher with a glib message. They don't have the personal relationship with the members that a small congregation does with its parish priest or minister. Who consoles the family at funerals? Who does the baptisms, visits the sick, performs weddings? The tent preacher dies or retires, or is indicted, and the whole operation folds.

Personally, I'm not sure where the "challenge" is. I don't see going head-to-head with the wild-eyed evangelicals as productive, although I would be perfectly happy to see them go away. Throughout its history, the Christian church has been splitting into segments and going to war with itself over doctrinal matters and the political power that it can grab. Yet it still survives and a quarter of the world's population is a part of it.

Part of its strength is that vast majority of Christians who prefer not to do battle with anyone, but concentrate on their own lives and beliefs. Most of my fellow travelers believe we can't change the world, but only ourselves and that little part of the world we touch.

Be careful. I grew up in the Bible Belt so I've dealth with this junk all my life. Fundies are very aggressive and persistent and take no prisoners. They will not "go away."

They are the pit bulls of religion. Eternal vigilance and all that.

But their message is shallow and harsh, and their true support fleeting. They will ascend to a certain point, but I can't see them getting much more power than they now have. If they do succeed in getting more religion into government, that also means more Lutherans and Catholics in there, too. And Jews. And Wiccans, Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims have a shot. They may find that getting what you ask for is not such a good idea.

Even deep in the Bible Belt, there are limits to how far they can go, and in the rest of the country they bluster on, but get little traction.

We've been there before, and the tiger has paper fangs.

But, yes, it is still a tiger.

The central lesson of the Book of Job, if I have read it correctly, is that (self)righteousness always leads to wickedness, causes wicked things to happen, and so becomes indistinguishable from wickedness in the eyes of God. And people who use the word "righteous" and self-identify as Christian tend to suffer from this very painful, extremely imposing, defect.

The "Christians" we talk about here are usually not Christians as Jesus of Nazareth would see it. The world is full of the sort that is in no way humble nor permits us the one true freedom that defines freedom. That is the one of being spiritual beings in the way we find true for ourselves, that takes us along our own path without asking much consent, and something we find we share with other people who are alive to that realm- true Christians almost invariably are so.

Many American Christians are people who very much live by the faith of their pre-Christian pagan ancestry more than anything really derived from the Bible, though they pretend otherwise. They like the solemn choral singing, the collective prayer and creeds, the candles, the organ music, the Christmas adornments and wreaths, the earnest invective and responsa, the chants, the aire of sacrifice, the costumes, the different states of consciousness and attention, the tacit syncretism, the morally serious tone of voice, the give-and-take of symbols and tokens and evocations, incantations, the intensity and seriousness of purpose. The sense of participating in something important and greater than their miserable selves.

There is nothing wrong with that. It is the idea that they are, virtue of some amount of experience, exempt in some large degree from profound sinfulness and insensible to it, that is so deeply pagan.

A lot of people here are deeply wounded by the abuse they have received at the hands of people who self-identify as Christian and find a flimsy excuse or two in their practices and literature for their failures. The way to understand it is as a grieving process, for faith in self-identified Christians as in Christianity (as understood) as for anything else that is an inflicted loss: with phases of Denial, Bargaining, Bitterness, Depression, and Acceptance. You won't see very much of the first two online, at least in intelligible form, and a lot of the third (anger) and fourth (often in the form of negativistic atheism).

I too walked away from Christianity, struggled with it, and grieved for what I felt I had lost. These days I find it unnecessary for me personally and consider organized religion the elementary school or kindergarten of the spiritual life, and teachings such as Church Christianity one simplified curriculum taught within it. People do graduate from it, or drop out of it, but many just do badly on the exams and are stuck repeating courses in it until they die. Like a community college, it's better to have a church or other religious center for the locals to go to learn than have no place to learn the basics and the variety of things. But like a community college, the wise do well to appreciate what good it creates at all, and not scrutinize things in such places too closely unless abuses overtly emanate from it. Unfortunately, for many of us such abuses are rather direct and commonly intentional, even if misguided.

*****

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it with religious conviction."
-- Blaise Pascal

"That is the idea -- that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion."
-- Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian

"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
-- Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..."
-- Article XI of the English text of the Treaty of Tripoli, approved by the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and ratified by President John Adams on June 10, 1797. (This article is lacking in the Arabic original. Note that congress and President Adams approved this English text.)

And from the other side...

"The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude… For the political man, the value of a religion must be estimated less by its deficiencies than by the virtue of a visibly better substitute. As long as this appears to be lacking, what is present can be demolished only by fools or criminals."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 267

http://mirrors.korpios.org/resurgent/Quotes-religion.htm

or could you at least give us a rundown of how you came to that conclusion about the book? If you are talking about the 'righteousness' of the friends who come to counsel Job, then maybe...


However, on the rest of your post, well, most of it is pretty darned good. Yes, there are tons of Christians out there who profess the faith yet could not explain the tenets of said faith as Christ (the author and perfector of our faith) laid them out. I, too, find it troubling that sooo many professing Christians seem to miss out on the foundations of what Christ came to teach. Do I believe that we should be able to live perfectly? No, but most of us could make a better effort that would certainly include some introspection. I am guilty from time to time of failures, as we all are, but when I take the time to analyse what and why things were done by me, I come to a greater understanding of my failures and lackings and am able to better compensate for them and grow.

Organzied religion and its trappings do present a bit of a problem for me as well. There are people who think that the practice of rites is what makes them a Christian...but Christ only mentions a couple of rituals (the Lord's Supper) and just about everything else he teaches is related to a relationship with God. I fall into a comfort zone with the rituals and hymns (for some reason that moldy old music just moves me) but that is not what I believe the core of Christianity to be. I do believe in a 'body of Christ' and a corporate worship structure (we are told that we need other Christians in our lives to whom we should be accountable and with whom we should be 'doing' life). So, as far as 'graduating' from organzied religion...well, there are some aspects of it that are necessary (IMHO) to growing in the faith. The key is to find a church that really bases itself in the teachings of Christ...

Ok, sorry for the sermon. Just felt like getting my two cents in on this topic. Thanks for reading my postulates...

TheProdigal

It is unfortunately the case that when you say "Christian" some people think of fundies, and true fundies (as defined by religion scholar Karen Armstrong) are on the whole a sick and twisted and ignorant group of people aggressively seeking to make everyone else as sick and twisted and ignorant as they are, or else.

Note that not all conservative Christians are fundies. Further, I have enormous respect for progressive Christians -- tried to be one myself, years ago, until I realized I was really a Buddhist. Christianity can be an awesome religion when practiced sincerely and honestly. But then there are fundies...

There are fundys in all religions. I was raised going to church every Sunday. I dont go as much today but I have nothing but respect for those that do. Dissing Christianity is like saying "look at me, Im a rebel without a clue." We lose when we do this. It shows no class.

There are many people incapable of understanding detail. The them all christians are Jerry Falwell.... what they don't understand is that they are actually Jerry Falwell.
But don't feel bad, in general the antitheists think all people with religion are irrational. They don't see that they are simply right brain deficient.

I'm an atheist. For me it's not a question of demonising Christianity, it's a question of being uncomfortable with being dictated to by those that invoke intangibles in order to justify their world view. This goes for all religions, however some are more intrusive than others. In my current position I am far more likely to be affected by the pronouncements of the Christian establishment than those of Hindus for example.

Many Christians are honourable good people who follow the teachings of Christ. However, institutionally the picture is different. There are those that believe so stridently that they are right that they are happy to dictate that others conform to their morality. This is a massive problem for a non -believer and it taints all of the good work that Christianity can achieve. There is work for mainstream Christians to do to ensure that the extremes of their group are reigned in or condemned. Currently it would appear that they are tolerated / encouraged.

Finally, there are those among the God squad who characterise the atheist as lacking or incomplete. This is an insult that can only be countered with the likes of "well you believe in sky fairies". Admittedly there is a lack of comprehension from both sides but I truly believe that atheists suffer far more difficulties at the hands of believers than vice versa. It's not a question of singular harassment (although this does happen). It is massive institutional pressure. From creationism to abortion, from gay marriage to stem cell research the institutional church does what it sees at it's duty to enforce moral codes. Those of us who don't believe there is any basis for this "authority" resent its intrusion into our lives.

Cmon , you guys are smarter than that. Tell me Islam isnt in your face and Ill laugh.

Islam denied me the right to marry a same sex partner?

Answer, thus far it hasn't.

That's my point I guess. I have no doubt that it would, but it's not the dominant "spiritual" force in the U.K. Christianity is. The established churches will not sanction this measure.

I'm an atheist because I don't believe there is any overarching power. We are born, we live and we die. Nothing mystical about it. Those intent on imposing a framework dictated by intangible being effect how I live my life. That bothers me.

if you were in a middle eastern theocracy Islam might deny you a great deal. Just because it is not the religion of power in the US and UK doesn't mean that it doesn't have its rabid adherents who would gladly deny you many of the things that you consider rights today. Just because Islam has not yet denied you anything does not mean that it cannot be abused...

TheProdigal

But the poster was asking why Christianity gets lots of flak in the U.S.

Personally I think all religions are flawed. People can believe what they want but if it affects me I'll resist.

Christians get more strife in the U.S because they have more power.

religions are flawed because the people who implement them are flawed. I personally think Christ came and taught a perfect religion that men have perverted to meet their own needs or to cover their own fears.

Persons in power (meaning in number in Democracies) will always impose their moral code on you unless there are laws to prevent it and good men/women to implement those laws. Bashing Christianity is fine with me as long as it is with the understanding that if Muslims were in the majority here or there they would attempt to impose their codes on you as well!

TheProdigal

nothing good has ever come from 2 or more "christians" getting together. They like to cry WAHHHHHHH im so oppressed. Bullshit, this country is infected with the disease of christianity so don't come pretending that they deserve any pity whatsoever.

Oh yeah, here is a question. why does every Christian walk around with a chip on their shoulder by announcing what religion they are? You can't be satisfied with a personal belief so you have to shove it in everyone's faces??

Satan...Who in there right mind goes around with a name like that. Oh yea, youre the anti christ himself. Just be quiet.

it is a name from a character in a movie.

Secondly, I probably know more about the bible and have more experience with christians than anyone on DU.

And no I will never be quiet.

You picked the name "Dr. SATAN" and now bitch about Christians letting you know they are Christian. Where you got the name is of no consequence.

Secondly, no one cares what you think you know. If you knew much you'd no "christians" aren't all alike and you would stop implying that you've known a lot so you know them all.

And we know you will never be quiet but we can dream can't we!

and speaking of announcing anything about OTHERS' religious proclivities, you might not cast stones with a name such as yours.

Your statements only further my opinion that you have no real knowledge and only vitriolic hatred to back you up...

TheProdigal

on edit : department of redundancy department

as I posted above, my name is from a movie and I don't go around shoving my beliefs in others faces.

And your opinion about me is irrelevent to this thread's subject.

Does tolerance have so little meaning anymore that hearing things you disagree with is now considered insulting.

Man is this planet going to hell in a hurry.

I don't know where you Dr. Satan types get your news or education but have you ever heard of a little thing called civil rights?

Ok you lose, who's next?

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

Who is it? What did HE do for a living?

Just because he was a christian doesn't mean christianty gets credit.
It could have been buddhists or muslims and acheived the same results.
MLK took non-violent resistance from ghandi, thoreau and jesus, so it is very arrogant for one religion to take credit for civil rights.

The movement to gain civil rights for my people came largely through the CHRISTIAN churches. So, yes, we CAN claim that it is Christian.

Sorry, Buddhists and Muslims did NOT help free my people.

"I hate religious zealots" or when I say "I hate fundamentalist Christians" many folks mistakenly hear "I-Hate-ALL-Christians".

Whenever I say "The Pope is wrong about condoms"... some folks mistakenly hear "I-Hate-All-Catholics".

It's just a matter of some folks being hypersensitive to ANY criticism of fundamentalism or zealot myopia. An "attack" on one is an attack on all... they don't bother to look further at what the real message is.

-- Allen

To original poster:

Get used to free speech, pal. NOTHING bad an atheist may say about Christians (or any other religion) can even approach "you are all going to Hell and the Creator of the Universe hates you". And don't get me started about "it's only a few fanatics". If you complain about being bashed by atheist when it's only a fraction that has the habit of bashing, I can apply similar measurement.

Don't like people speaking their mind? TOUGH.

And why we bash Christianity more than other religions? Because, among other things, that is the one religion that has power in the Western world, where we live. Were we living in the Middle East, we'd be bashing Islam instead (and maybe risk getting a fatwa but I digress). Were we in Israel, it would be Judaism (which by the way I consider less bashable than Christianity, but I digress again).

I have always been a closet atheist. Now, it's No More Mr. Nice Guy.

And let me tell you again: I assure you 100% this little angry diatribe you are just reading is WAY WAY WAY more civilized and restrained than anything religious zealots have been throwing at each other and at nonbelievers throughout history. Have a nice day.

spokesmen for the RW, including the former chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court are demagogues for the Neo-cons.

Why would anyone "demonize" the American Taliban?

Gee, i dunno..............

The answers are right in front of you.

my family have insured me that I am going to hell for not being one of them. And all people like me are going there too. So they say. I say they support a court appointed murderer. And they twist the words of their beloved jesus to allow their real God Bu$h to kill more brownskinned people. Why do I ridicule and insult Christians? Actually I try not to. But when I do it is because they won`t admit that God may not exist. And that I have the constitutional right to believe that is so. Hell their beacon to truth and faith is squatting in Al Gore`s White House. How can I not think they are deluded?
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

But there is a lot wrong with many of the perceptions some have of Christianity, or any other religion.

For starters, I would suggest avoiding anyone that tries to "scare" you into any belief system. Hellfire and Brimstone is NOT what Christianity is about. It is a religion based on Love, Justice, Equality, Forgiveness and Charity. One should be aware that Jesus did not have run ins with the oppressed of society, he had run ins with hypocrites and those that had bastardized the Laws given to the Jews by God.

The heirarchy of the Israelites was threatened by Jesus, and they plotted to have him disposed of. Jesus was just as opposed to hypocrisy as most dems are, that was the real fight he had, just as we have. What we often fail to see, is that those that shout the loudest, like the Falwells, Robertson's, et al; are the ones that people equate "christianity" with. They are the hypocrites that Jesus would be turning on right now.

Seek, and you will find. Look deeper than what others "say" is "true christianity". The true Christian is not afraid to sacrifice for the well-being of others. The true Christian is not afraid to forgive; and forgiveness is total, no strings attached, no special clauses added. A true Christian would never use the threat of 'hell and damnation' to those who would not accept Christianity; a true Christian would walk the walk, and hope you would follow.

As a Christian, I claim no special privledges, expect no more respect than any other human, and try my hardest to be as forgiving as is humanly possible. I make mistakes, but I learn from them. A wise rabbi told me years ago that if I were to ask for anything from God, I should ask for wisdom; but I should also be afraid I might get that gift as well, as it carries great responsibility.

BTW....Random Acts of Kindness, are a good way to start looking at life a little differently, regardless of religious persuasion.

O8)

Christianity and Capitalism DO NOT MIX, not matter how hard they try.
Capitalism turns money into a deity, and Christians aren't allowed two.

and on a personal note- Christianity stole my youth. I went to parochial schools my whole life, and even bought into the fairy tales for a while.

It goes back to spending more than a decade as a day sleeper (I found I could make more money if I worked graveyard shifts).

Proselytizers seem to be unable to read signs that say things like DAY SLEEPER, DO NOT KNOCK ON DOOR!!! and my favorite, NO SOLICITING.

I even went so far as to place a sign that read the following on my door:

I AM A DAY SLEEPER. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR RELIGION. I DO NOT WANT TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR RELIGION. KEEP YOUR RELIGION TO YOURSELF AND GO AWAY!

All to no avail. Every Spring they showed up on my door week after week ignoring every sign I had placed waking me up in the middle of what was my night.

Proselytizers are rude, obnoxious, evil people who deserve no respect.

n/t

sorry....trying to be funny

...fundie Busheep "Christians", there's also that difference in most religions. Or even non religions, for that matter. On this board there are the atheists and agnostics, and then there's the few rabid anti-theists who have a genuine hostility toward any mention of spiritual matters. Just a quick scan of this thread will let you know who some of them are. And they aren't much better than the Falwell's, Phelps, and Bin Laden's of the world

Yes... I'm sure you can point to all the gay funerals that "rabid atheists" have picketed. I'm sure you can show us the 'rabid atheist' equivalent of the "GOD HATES FAGS" demonstrations.

Let's see... hmmm...

Refresh my memory of how Rabid-Atheists use thier political connections to pass LAWS and set POLICY that discriminate.

Those nasty nasty Rabid Atheists are ALWAYS using their Athe-vangelical TV appearances to un-convert the believers and whip their followers up into a frenzy froth so that they go and bomb the places where Christians hang out. Oh the humanity of it all!

I'm waiting with baited breath for examples of how Rabid Atheists are organizing terrorism camps and suicide bombers.

PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US!

-- Allen

Having been raised as a Christian and still sympathetic to the teachings of Christ, I'm always dismayed at what has become of Christianity in America. It's become an outright scam and ideological hate machine for reactionary politics. It has made selfishness and intolerance into virtures. Its god is the only god and all else are immoral godless baby-killers.

I realize all Christians are not followers of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, but I also don't see many of the "good Christians" -- some dissident Episcopalians excepted -- adamantly denouncing their brethern in Christ.

Falwell and Robertson are the ones who have their own media to get their hateful message out. But they are far from the spokespeople for Christianity, nor are there no other Christians speaking out.

Bill Moyers interview with Joseph Hough, President of Union Theological Seminary
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript239_full.html

MOYERS: What you just saw in Jefferson, Wisconsin, is part of a bigger story, a story of class war waged by owners, managers, and investors who are running away with the spoils of victory.

Look at this recent issue of FORBES magazine: America's 400 richest people got richer in the past 12 months, with an aggregate net worth of — brace yourself — $955 billion, up 10% from the previous year.

Now look at this headline: the widest gap between rich and poor since 1929, more than doubling in the last two decades.

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington has studied after tax income and found that if you take the 110 million poorest paid Americans, all their income combined is less than the combined income of the richest 2.8 million Americans.

Now some people say the class war is over, that with so much economic power and the means to make those big contributions to a political system that rewards donors over voters, the rich can perpetuate these extraordinary levels of inequality forever.

Joseph Hough doesn't think so.

Hough is the president of union theological seminary in New York, called there from retirement after a lifetime as dean of the Vanderbilt Divinity School in Tennessee, and the Claremont School of Theology in California.

He recently took a hard look at those economic facts and was outraged.

So outraged he took to the pulpit and called on the three Abrahamic religions — Christianity, Judaism and Islam — to challenge to the powers that be.

MOYERS: You recently did a very radical thing. You called on the children of Abraham — Muslims, Christians and Jews — to engage in an act of refusal.

HOUGH: Well, my perception, Bill, is that there is a definite intentional move on the part of political leadership in this country. In the direction that I think is not at all compatible with the prophetic tradition in Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. And that is the obligation on the part of people who believe in God to care for the least and the poorest. That central teaching, that sacred code, I think, is very well summed up in Proverbs where the writer of Proverbs says, "Those who oppress the needy insult their maker." "Those who oppress the needy insult their maker."

And I think that it would be a wonderful thing if we could stand together, these three great Abrahamic traditions, and say, "Look, we do not countenance this sort of thing. It is not only unfair, it is immoral on the basis of our religious traditions, and we believe it's an insult to God."

MOYERS: And it is what?

HOUGH: The growing gap between the rich and the poor which has become almost obscene by anybody's standards, and the stated intentional policy of bankrupting the government so that in the future there'll be no money for anything the federal government would decide to do.

MOYERS: We've all heard this from economists.

HOUGH: Yes.

MOYERS: And political pundits, and analysts, think tank experts. But we're hearing this from the president of a seminary?

HOUGH: Yeah. You are. And the reason you are is because I think that it's not just a political pundit issue. It's not just a think tank issue. It is a deep and profound theological issue. And it has to do with whether we are faithful to the deepest convictions called for by our faith.

Because the central teaching of Jesus is-announced when he says, from Isaiah 61, "God has anointed me to preach good news to the poor, deliverance to the captives, freedom to the oppressed, and the year of Jubilee." And as you know, the year of Jubilee was the year when land reform was supposed to take place, debts were to be canceled, slaves freed.

Jesus drew from that Jewish tradition, that Covenental tradition, and the obligation to care for the needy. Jesus Christ was a Jew. To his soul, he was a Jew. By the time he was 11 years old, people were absolutely astounded how well he knew the Jewish tradition.

He crafted his message in direct connection to the Jewish tradition, and it was no accident that Luke put Isaiah 61 in Jesus' mouth at Nazareth. "The spirit of God is upon me because God has anointed me to preach good news to the poor." If you go through the Gospel to Luke, the entire theme of Luke is this.

It appears also in the Sermon on the Mount. It appears indirectly in the feeding of the five thousand or four thousand, whichever you want. It's reported four times in the Gospel, more than any other single event in the life of Jesus. In every case, and it also, in a way, it foreshadows the Eucharist. Because the Eucharistic meal was first a meal for the people who were the followers of Jesus. And if you look in Acts 3, you will see that those followers of Jesus saw to it that people who didn't have enough to eat could come to that table and get enough to eat. That was the radical model they put out there. Nobody likes to talk about that very much. But there it is. Right in the middle of Acts.

And they continued to worship in the temple. This is a continuity with the best in the Jewish tradition, and it is also no accident that there's some strong similarities in the Koran. And that is why I think all of us in the Abrahamic traditions who share this conviction about care for the least fortunate should simply make some kind of public declaration that enough is enough. We've gone far enough.

And it is not at all in the spirit of American democracy to generate inequality, and to contradict equal opportunity in our society. Those are not the norms we've lived by.

MOYERS: Again, I come back to the paradox, which is that these policies to which you are protesting, which you say are immoral were enacted by a Congress and an Administration elected to a significant degree with the support of the religious right — Conservative Christians who got active in politics and saw that their candidates were elected, and they're seeing now the policies that they believe they elected those officials to carry out.

HOUGH: Well. That's true, Bill, but my Dad, as I told you, is a Baptist preacher. He was until he was 84. And there was a notorious drunk in town who when he got drunk, he really went after preachers. But he said he was born-again Christian. And one day, someone asked my father if he thought Brother Suggs was a born-again Christian. And my father said, "Only God knows that."

But, you know, the Lord Jesus said, "By their fruits, you shall know them." And speaking as a humble fruit inspector of the Lord, I'd say that if this person is a born-again Christian, there's a mixed signal somewhere." I feel the same way.

If Tom Delay is acting out of his born-again Christian convictions in pushing legislation that disadvantages the poor every time he opens his mouth, I'm not saying he's not a born-again Christian, but as a the Lord's humble fruit inspector, it sure looks suspicious to me. And anybody who claims in the name of God they're gonna run over people of other nations, and just willy-nilly, by your own free will, reshape the world in your own image, and claim that you're acting on behalf of God, that sounds a lot like Caesar to me.

MOYERS: Can a secular democracy, in a pluralistic society, where there are many faiths, including people of no faith, can that democratic government be expected to represent the religious, prophetic imperatives of people like you?

HOUGH: Well, maybe so, maybe not, Bill. But I'm getting tired of people claiming they're carrying the banner of my religious tradition when they're doing everything possible to undercut it. And that's what's happening in this country right now. The policies of this country are disadvantaging poor people every day of our lives and every single thing that passes the Congress these days is disadvantaging poor people more.

MOYERS: I don't think even conservatives dispute that the inequality is growing in this country. You somehow sense that inequality is more profoundly disruptive and dangerous than others.

HOUGH: I think some inequality in terms of economics is necessary. That doesn't alarm me a great deal. It is the obscene degree to which economic inequality has taken hold in America that I think is highly questionable. There is no justification under Heaven for some corporate executives to make 1,000 times as much as their average worker. Their contribution may be great. But it's no less than Peter Drucker, my colleague at Claremont for 25 years, said…

MOYERS: Management guru par excellence.

HOUGH: Management guru and certainly nobody's fuzzy-headed liberal. Peter Drucker says, "This compromises the integrity of a corporate executive. Why?" Because it does not accept, and it does not in any way acknowledge the incredible contributions of people who work at various levels, the various constituencies of a corporation to its well being. It is driven by other factors than acknowledgement of who contributes to the well being of the corporation.

Now Bill, I'm not naive. Nobody believes that everybody can be exactly the same, get the same. But there's certain bare minimums, what Amartya Sen, my favorite development economist calls. A Nobel Prize winner, Amartya Sen calls the capability to function in society. And Sen says that no society can claim to be fair if there are substantial numbers of its citizens who are not receiving enough assistance or income to have the capability to function. Now, what does that mean? It means to buy food, to have a place to live, to have their children educated, to get reasonable health care and a job.

And we want to ask the people of our traditions to join us is asking every single political leader we encounter, "What are you gonna do in order to help make this happen?" Let's make that the litmus test of whether or not we're gonna vote for a particular leader.

This is not a partisan issue. I mean, my God, who in the world could possibly stand up and say, "I'm a Christian. I don't think we should really give much attention to the life of the poor." Some do. But I don't think it's a party line thing.

I mean, I'd like for this debate to be carried on in such a way that we could, and here I'm talking about Abrahamic traditions. We could ask ourselves "What changes in the direction of this country are necessary if it really is gonna make a claim to be a democracy?" We're not asking it to be a theocracy. A democracy. That's what it's about. Politically, that's what it's about.

MOYERS: It's about?

HOUGH: It is about whether Democrats and Republicans who are sensitive to this move, where people who are sensitive to this move in our society politically, are able to get the will to say, "Enough is enough." I mean, let's stop this business, and let's look again and ask the question, "What will really make this a country that we can be proud of, and one that that pays attention to all the people, not just a few."

MOYERS: A recent Nobel Laureate has said that he thinks the time is coming for civil disobedience again. What do you think about that?

HOUGH: I think it may come to that. I think it may come to that, I really do. I don't know what form it's to take. It's got to be civil disobedience that is not destructive. One of the problems I have with some of the demonstrations against for example, the WTO and at Davos.

MOYERS: The World Trade Organization?

HOUGH: The World Trade Organization, and the Davos conferences one of the problems I have with those is that some people seem just bent on destruction and violence. And I think Martin Luther King's exactly right. If you try to advance your cause with violence, you provoke violence, and the way the world is structured, if you try to promote your cause with violence, you're gonna lose. The only way to promote your cause is civil disobedience and the willingness to take the consequences for it. And I think we're just about there.

MOYERS: Joe Hough, thank you very much.

HOUGH: Thank you.

If someone wants to badmouth another religion or philosophy they should come from it.

My background is evangelical Christian and I feel like I know enough about it inside and out to say anything I want.

Same goes for any other religion or school of thought. Critique should come from within.

I really don't understand the purpose of your question. The answer to your question seems self-evident to me. (Perhaps you were being rhetorical and you really didn't expect an answer... you were just thinking 'out loud'.)

-- Allen

After all, was it not Christ who said, "Do not judge, lest ye be judged. Do not condemn, lest ye be condemned yourself?"

All I can do is point out their hypocrisy... and in doing so, I'm "persecuting" them. Isn't that rich? The irony!

What's their fascination with Leviticus? Why do they cherry-pick (and choose) which chapters and verses to quote (and which ones to totally ignore) whenever it suits their purpose?

Just asking. Not attacking.

-- Allen

As for what I can do, it's pretty much the same as you. I can point out their hypocrisy, and quite often there is no better source for doing so than the Gospels (the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- which tell the story of Jesus's life and death).

As for their fascination with Leviticus and cherry-picking, it's in keeping with their closed-mindedness. It's probably a much more complex subject -- rooted more in psychology (and their fear of what they can't quickly understand) than religion itself.

One of the big influences on my evolution of faith has been the Quakers. If you don't know much about them, they believe that a person's inspiration comes from within -- that by "sitting in stillness" and engaging in inner reflection, they will find the guidance they are seeking from within their own heart. It's the kind of belief that says that God actually lies within each one of us, and it is through inner reflection -- rather than public prayer or ritual -- that we come to commune with God. If you've ever had the pleasure of sharing company with devout Quakers, you will also find them to be some of the most "real" people you will ever encounter. They are ardent pacifists, do not seek to condemn others but rather to spread the spirit of love throughout the world, and quite often look to "unencumber" themselves with needless material possessions -- as these often get in the way of inner reflection.

Personally, that's where my faith comes from as well -- even though I'm a UU and not a Quaker. But I often find that my approach comes into conflict with some of my fellow UU's, many of whom are atheists or agnostics, because it is not a faith on reason. But whatever the differences, we always find a way to discuss things civilly -- because only by doing so can we understand each others' beliefs a little better (and perhaps even rub off a little on each other).

Going back to the fundies, that is precisely where the problem with them occurs. They have no interest in discussion. They don't want to consider points of view outside of their own. My Grandfather is a Baptist, and he tells me that he wants to go to church to "learn about the Bible". He can't understand what the deal is with my fellowship -- I mean, how can we have services if we don't use the Bible? I doubt he ever will understand it, either. Nor will many of the fundies.

Fundies will always be there, but they are not winning -- despite what many people think. Most people don't believe in their hatred and exclusivity, in spite of how loud they might be. But that doesn't mean that the fight against them is over by any means, and it is up to those of us who don't believe in their hate-mongering to call them on their hypocrisy. But at the same time, it is important to recognize that their point of view is hardly shared by all Christians -- and to not lump them all together as such.

so complacent? (Not you personally... but "you" as a group of folks who think similarly to how you think.)

What's with the "conspiracy" of silence? Why are even the more moderate churches SILENT when it comes to treating Queers with the same respect that ANY HUMAN BEING would otherwise receive?

I disagree with you. The fundies ARE winning. I see NO CANDIDATES and NO ELECTED OFFICIALS who seek advice from, or who cater to the whims and desires of any religious institution OTHER than fundie ones. Why is that?

Whether it's "defense of marriage" or working to ensure the continuation of legalized job discrimination, the fundies are winning.

In the meantime... I must be looking away at just the right moment, because I hear NOTHING from other moderate religious institutions. Oh... perhaps they grumble among themselves... but they certainly don't flex their muscle when it comes to helping our elected (and appointed) politicians realize the error of their thinking and the actual impact that their myopic policies have.

I guess that's the inherent flaw in being an ardent pacifist. Sigh.

-- Allen

Additionally, many of us who are liberal Christians also believe what Jesus said about praying in private versus praying in the open. It is the hypocrite who prays loudly on the street corner (a la Falwell, Robertson, etc.) so that everyone will see his religiosity.

As for not seeing our more moderate and liberal religious institutions speaking out, you must have been asleep when the National Council of Churches was one of the most outspoken groups against the invasion of Iraq. My denomination (Unitarian Universalist) also issued public statements in complete support of the recent MA ruling in favor of gay marriage. You can find it at http://www.uua.org.

If they truly believe in the separation of church and state thing... then what are they doing to make certain that it remains that way.

Standing back and doing nothing isn't REALLY a proactive approach. I exaggerate to make a point... but it appears to be the equivalent of saying "hey... we're doing our part by doing nothing and setting a good example for other churches"

I'm delighted to see the UU support. I only wish they had more influence.

From where I'm sitting, the 'minority' fundies appear to have the upper hand and they appear to have government officials in their hip pocket. Pity.

-- Allen

Virtualy every African-American politician has religious roots or advisors and those are not the fundies you so hate.

Out in the public world atheists rarely speak their minds. Most just keep quiet. There are many, many more atheists than many Christians would like to believe. If you are an atheist, it is just not "safe" to say so publically. Would someone who said he was an atheist ever be able to be elected president in this country? I doubt it. Immediately, he would be considered immoral and not fit to be president.

I know that I never, NEVER admit to being an atheist. That is my own cowardice, I guess. I just don't want to put up with the reactions I get. I do so on this board ONLY because it is annonymous. For those of you liberals who are also Christians, imagine yourself in an office full of "freeper" coworkers. What is their reaction going to be when you tell them how you feel about the present administration? Would you even tell them at all? Well, folks, this is exactly what it's like to be an atheist in America today.

Atheists are to religion as liberals are to neocons. Many of us only feel brave enough to speak when we are annonymous.

If they don't like me, that's their business. I don't raise topics at work and I don't run away from them.

Natch.

and theyre always the first ones to judge others. They like to generalize and Im tired of it.

how are atheists always pushing their godlessness on you personally?
I'm curious.

for reference

:evilgrin:

It has become inflammatory and many personal attacks have been removed from it.



NYer99
DU Moderator