To the anti-christians on DU, please check your bigotry at the door

and consider how much of a role religion plays in the life of our most likely nominee.

First, this nation was founded on religious freedom. Singling out a particular religion, Christianity, and insulting it and the members of it is clearly anti-democratic. To pre-judge people for their religious beliefs is bigoted. Furthermore, the spiritual nexus of Christrianity is Jesus Christ, who has one of the most egalitarian, pro-peace, pro-social-justice messages out there. Jesus Christ is a liberal progressive's ally, not his enemy.

Second, Barack Obama is forced to make his religious belief's clear because someone is making a concerted effort to confuse voters and make them believe he is Muslim. Unfortunately, that would be a death knell to any Presidential candidate right now. Give the guy a break on this. Could you imagine how you'd feel if people were lying about your religion just to smear you? It's a horrible position he is in and you can't hold his name or parents against him. Seriously, what kind of people is DU attracting these days that we are so vindictive and hateful?

For the record, I was raised Christian but I am now a devout agnostic. I'd like to believe in God but my scientific skepticism keeps me from believing too strongly in any set of religious constructs. My wife is Jewish and I wholly embrace her and her family's religious identity. I don't tolerate anti-semitic, anti-christian, or anti-muslim bigotry.

Unfortunately, DU is a haven for people that have found refuge from the mean spirited religious bigots of the right and have injected that bigotry into these forums as an anti-Christian ethos that carries weight around here. I truly feel sorry for DU Christians for this.

One of the tricks I've seen around here lately is where people try to paint Obama as some sort of closet "fundie" (their derogatory slang, not mine) just for defending his identity. It's safe to say this is coming from folks that would like to see his undoing. So, it's not a stretch to say that this is coming from the Edwards and Clinton boosters.

To counter that, and hopefully render that talking point MOOT (as in, let's drop it) I feel forced to bring attention to Hillary Clinton's "religious" activity. I am not going to fault Clinton for this as she has a right to her religious beliefs but here's what is easily obtainable on the net w/ simple google search:

http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.pl?url=http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html
and
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html

"Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection. "A lot of evangelicals would see that as just cynical exploitation," says the Reverend Rob Schenck, a former leader of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who now ministers to decision makers in Washington. "I don't....there is a real good that is infected in people when they are around Jesus talk, and open Bibles, and prayer."

"When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she regularly met with a Christian "cell" whose members included Susan Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of conservative icon Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a leader in the anti-union Christian management movement; and Grace Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Florida Democrat.

Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or "the Family"), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has "made a fetish of being invisible," former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15157545/

The roster of regular participants has included such notable conservative names as Brownback, Santorum, Nickles, Enzi, and Inhofe. Then, in 2001, just after the new class of senators was sworn in, another name was added to the list: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

One spring Wednesday, a few months into the term, Senator Sam Brownback’s turn came to lead the group, and he rose intending to talk about a recent cancer scare. But as he stood before his colleagues Brownback spotted Clinton, and was overcome with the impulse to change the subject of his testimony. “I came here today prepared to share about this experience in my life that has caused great suffering, the result of which has deepened my faith,” Brownback said, according to someone who watched the scene unfold. “But I’m overcome now with only one thought.” He confessed to having hated Clinton and having said derogatory things about her. Through God, he now recognized his sin. Then he turned to her and asked, “Mrs. Clinton, will you forgive me?” Clinton replied that she would, and that she appreciated the apology.

“It was an extraordinary moment,” the member told me.

This repentance fostered an unlikely relationship that has yielded political bounty. Clinton and Brownback went on to cosponsor one measure protecting refugees fleeing sexual abuse, and another to study the effects on children of violent video games and television shows. “That morning helped make our working relationship,” Brownback told me recently. “It brought me close to someone I did not ever imagine I would become close to.” Since then, Clinton has teamed up on legislation with many members of the prayer group.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/12/hillary_clinton_4.html

"Though Strider, as a onetime staff member for Nancy Pelosi, is squarely in the liberal camp, Clinton is part of not one, but two, prayers groups with distinctly conservative bents: an exclusive Senate prayer group that meets on Wednesday mornings, and a women’s prayer group that she’s been a part of since her early White House days. The women’s group is run by Holly Leachman, a layperson at the McLean Bible Church in Virginia, itself magnet for prominent conservatives, including former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, Republican senators John Thune and James Inhofe, as well as several Bush staffers and their families."

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/010937.php

Ignorance cannot be an excuse here, because a Google search would tell you the Fellowship believes that Christian elites have a duty to rule the world, and serve Jesus Christ in a higher calling than their duties as leaders of nations. Plainly put, according to Sharlet, “the Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God’s plan.” The notion that Christian elites should rule the world for the rest of us, and should lead their countries not for the benefit of all, but to pursue God’s plan as defined by the Fellowship and founder Doug Coe runs contrary to what this country was founded upon, and is anything but progressive.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________


So there you have it. Multiple independent sources (not right wing rags either) report on the influence of religion in Clinton's political life and political connections. People cannot deny it.

So, before calling out Barack after he is forced to defend and re-affirm his identity, please consider exactly what the front-runner (Clinton) is involved in.

:shrug:

Christianity has plenty of reasons to be attacked. Read the bible, it's fucking down right nasty.

Just sayin. I would never worship a god who ordered the slaughter and dismemberment of innocent children, if you can justify killing innocent kids and infants, then power to ya ...thats a road I can't go down.

I respect your right to worship what ever you want. Just want to make that clear.

nt

at least being honest about your bigotry.

You are one of the few who has enough fortitude to acknowledge your own feelings.

peace~

Unlike skin color or sexual orientation, religion is something that is chosen; therefore, if I am against religion it is not bigotry; I simply choose differently than you.

But that ain't gonna fly here... hehe

I don't even see where choice even enters into the equation. If it's not race or somesuch, then it's not bigotry?

That's ridiculous. Bigotry is making assumptions about an entire group of people based on the actions of a few. Bigotry is broad-brush derogatory sweeping statements about a group of people as if they were all the same.

Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry whether a person chooses to be in a group of people or not. No one group is ALL anything.

No one is born a Christian, it is simply a belief system they choose to adopt and anyone is free to disagree with that belief system just as strenuously as they'd like. You don't get to call anyone who disagrees with you a bigot, sorry.

I'm talking about derogatory statements.

Something like when we discuss our candidates, and a distinction is made between criticism and bashing.

I don't want to hear people suggest that any one group is all anything.

Rather like when 9/11 happened, and some people thought that all Muslims were to blame, suggesting that if they didn't speak up to denounce the act that it proved what a lousy religion Islam was.

I'm NOT talking about people saying that Christians worship a sky daddy or that Christianity is a violent religion or that the world would be better place without religion.

I AM talking about being lumped in with Conservative Fundamentalists. They make my teeth itch. And I do believe the feeling is mutual, what with me being a LIBERAL Christian and all.

There are some very good, progressive, outspoken, informed people in my church. I didn't even know that til 2004 and I got some thumbs up for wearing my Kerry button to church, something I'd been afraid to do. I ended up being the button, bumper sticker and yard sign connection for the people at my church. I was so pleased and proud. I'd never even dared to talk politics with them before.

As for the campaign and such, I'd really like to see everyone hold up the same standard to all the candidates, theirs included. If Obama's faith matters, then so does Hillary's. Don't discount one while raging about the other. Ya know?

Post 11 by Blarch IS a disgreement with Christianity, and contains no bigotry. If you believe otherwise, feel free to try to make that argument.

with some seeing it as only applying to those attributes you have no control over, and me saying that it's broad brush statements made about any group, whether they're in that group by choice or not.

And I believe what set me off was the comment about what "they" like to say. Thus it was not Blarch but you and I believe zanne I was having a beef with. Blarch, not so much.

Sort of a sub-sub-thread thing.

It is a belief system they choose to adopt. It's an opinion, and anyone is free to disagree with that opinion. Opinions are specifically opinions, and not attributes.

"And I believe what set me off was the comment about what "they" like to say."

The "they" I refer to is Christofascists and homophobes who have become members of DU, but haven't been tombstoned yet. You're putting words in my mouth by trying to say I was characterizing all Christians, or that I was saying anything about Christians at all. You wouldn't even have to be a Christian to be arguing that Christianity is a sacred cow that can't be harshly criticized. That's an argument that would appeal to any reich-winger. And those people, non-Christians, could just as easily be the people I'm referring to as "they." The post you're referring to doesn't contain the word Christian at all.

"Blarch, not so much."

"Not so much" isn't a clear denial that you think Blarch doesn't have a right to his opinion about Christianity without being called a bigot.

Did you say Christofaschists and homophobes who have become members of DU but haven't been tombstones yet? No, you did not. Hence, how was I supposed to know what you were referring to.

Btw, dictionary.com has the same definition of bigotry that I do: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

I'm not talking about, nor concerned with, Blarch. I'm talking to you, and Zanne. And as you can see by the definition, attributes are not the only things people can be bigoted about.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, looking back at what Blarch said, I'd say no, he didn't express bigotry, but only his opinion.

So I'm hardly responsible for your misinterpretation. And I'm not going back over this again.

"dictionary.com has the same definition of bigotry that I do: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

I have no problem with that definition. I would never argue that Christianity should be banned. Harsh criticism of Christianity isn't what I'd call intolerance, as long you aren't interested in interfering with someone's right to be be a Christian. And since you agree Blarch's post wasn't bigoted, we have no disagreement here.

It shouldn't be a part of any candidates campaign. It's one thing to be a believer, but to use it as a 'vote builder' is total bullshit.

Tell us that you aren't. My only area of concern about Christians is the way the churches are telling people how to vote and getting political. I grew up with Catholicism, and back then if the church I attended had tried to tell people who to vote for, parishioners would have left that church in droves. But now, it seems perfectly acceptable to mix it all together. WRONG. Say what you want to say about your politics, but don't try to bring your religion into it.

you are talking about is much more complicated than you know.

A persons faith, is much more than an "opinion"- or a "belief system".

And you CAN be bigoted against belief systems.

There are many individuals who believe that anyone who is a Republican is an asshole-

There are many individuals who believe that anyone who is a Democrat is an asshole.

THAT is bigotry.


peace~

You can stamp your feet and whine that Christianity is off limits to criticism all you want, it isn't.

address this issue-?

Belief is not a choice. I cannot "choose" to believe what ever I want. None of us can.

What is really being discussed here, isn't christianity- it is bigotry and intolerance.

And bigotry and intolerance is something that needs to be identified and addressed when it comes up.

peace~

Saying you don't have any control over what you believe sounds like a pretty good definition of insanity to me.

Belief is not a choice. I cannot "choose" to believe what ever I want. None of us can."

Ok fine, that's your opinion, but it ain't mine, and it's never going to be my opinion. So what's next, are you going to try to shove your interpretation of "belief" down my throat, because you're a self-professed Christian and that's supposed to make your opinion matter more than mine?

you just said a mouthful.

First, as to your diagnosis of "insanity" - you may really want to check into Freud's writings concerning 'belief'- It is very interesting- especially considering the fact that he was a self described Atheist.

You may also find that there are many who share my understanding that "belief" is NOT a choice.
Minds, much sharper and better educated than me-


Secondly-


I in NO way claim that my 'beliefs' matter ANY MORE than ANYONES. They matter to me- That doesn't make them "right" or "wrong". They simply are. And I shouldn't have to face ridicule and prejudice because of them- nor should you be ridiculed or rejected for being different from me in this area.

I have NO desire to "shove" anything "down your throat" or demand that you adopt my way of living or thinking.

You can't FORCE someone to 'believe' something. You may intimidate them into saying or doing what you demand, but a persons faith is something that isn't volitional.

I AM asking that you not engage in making sweeping blanket statements about me, based on your perception of a "group of individuals" who you lump together into a pile, demean and reject based on the- admittedly terrible, actions of vicious individuals within this group.


peace~

I have NO desire to "shove" anything "down your throat" or demand that you adopt my way of living or thinking.

You can't FORCE someone to 'believe' something. You may intimidate them into saying or doing what you demand, but a persons faith is something that isn't volitional."

All of this sounds like you think I was saying you might try to shove your Christianity down my throat, and that isn't what I meant. I was referring specifically to your opinion that what someone believes isn't chosen. We disagree on that, and there's no point in further discussing it, because I'm not going to change my opinion.

I AM asking that you not engage in making sweeping blanket statements about me, based on your perception of a "group of individuals" who you lump together into a pile, demean and reject based on the- admittedly terrible, actions of vicious individuals within this group."

I've done NONE of that, I've only criticized Christianity itself, and I'll feel free to exercise my 1st Amendment rights in that regard all I want. You need to stop accusing people who disagree with you of being bigots. The mods are very strict on bigotry, alert my posts if you think I've been bigoted. But you don't, because you know the mods protect free speech here. Neither you or the mods will stop me from criticizing Christianity, so you might as well drop this here.

done.

You claim it's choice-

Lots of people make that mistake.
I won't hold it against you.

g'nite.
peace~

get to call someone a bigot if they hate you because of your race or religeon.....it is the disparaging remarks about Christians in general or as a whole that defines you as a bigot.

ever could.

thanks for putting it so clearly.


peace~

"A man must be both stupid and uncharitable who believes there is no virtue or truth but on his own side." - Joseph Addison

"Bigot, one who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain." - Ambrose Bierce

Deaf ears, though, I'm afraid.

You're a bigot, too, right?

or anything with the word "all" in it, then I'd be a bigot.

If I disrespected you, I wouldn't be a bigot. I would be the asshole.

totally mistaken.

peace~

I just think slaughtering infants is sick...thats all.

It's Annual Infant-Slaughtering Day. But you won't be there? Damn! Then it's hardly worth the trouble.

Seriously, which denomination slaughters infants?

I haven't noticed people killing any newborns lately.

in his name. GOd is love. Just because someone says that they are doing what God wants doesn't make it true. Don't blame God for what people do who use him as justification. I believe that is what the poster is saying. God has nothing to do with the bible or with the idiots that blaspheme his intentions. Period.

LOL..

:rofl:

Ya, OK..

:shrug:

Ta Da!

You would know that god has everything to do with the bible.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16)

But because I'm not a stupid, naive atheist, I can realize the rather obvious fact that most Christians don't take the entire Bible literally.

god DOES have something to do with the bible.

The fact remains.

But you're using ridiculous mythological old testament crap as an excuse to slur Christians.

And that's just dumb, immature, and the kind of argument a fundamentalist Christian would make.

The quoted text was written before the canon was closed. It can't logically be a reference to a collection of books that didn't exist when it was written.

You would know that god has everything to do with the bible.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16)

some people believe it is the equivilent of god- Many of us don't.

peace~

it will tell you that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God"

Oh the irony, an Atheist teaching a christian about the bible.

Because it looks like you haven't taught anybody anything.

teaching me about your perspective- but nothing that you have stated about the bible is anything I haven't already read, considered, or known already.

One does NOT have to accept the bible as 'god's word, in order to be a 'Christ'ian. Consider this- the bible as we know it today is a creation of modern man. The King James Bible was commissioned by King James and first published in 1611.

The "bible" is a collection of books, letters, and narriatives which were chosen by human beings at some very divisive meetings, (which would make our primary look tame) set up by order of the Emperor Constantine.

The "Council of Nicea" the meeting credited with establishing on the version closest to the one we now have,- was held long after the death of Christ.

If you believe the bible to be the inspired word of god, then the passages you cite may give you some comfort, or assurance as to your source. They don't do that for me.

As I said above- I do not hold the bible up to being the "word of god".

peace~

And it shouldn't include so many errors.

is written as they see him. I doubt greatly that God agrees. If he agreed, then there would be no gays, no diversity and no love in this shitty world. We see everything as we think it is, not how it truly is or was meant to be.

The spagetti monster thing is getting a bit tired.

of a very anti-Christian bias. I beseech you to read them and open your heart and mind to what is just another form of bigotry.

Would you tolerate such and attitude of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or any other religious sect?

This sort of talk is prevalent on DU and has been for years.

I'd be against them, you bet!

Christians have done plenty to criticize. And you're going to hear about it.

Smearing liberal christians with the same tarred brush is another.

that although they founded this country on Christian principles (which are pretty good principles)they have systematically lost a great deal of what THEY valued in America.

Particularly since bigoted Christians attack me and my ilk every day of the week in this country.

It gives me something to do while masturbating.

After a few exchanges of attacks, isn't it kinda hard to remember who attacked first?

"Particularly since bigoted Christians attack me and my ilk every day of the week in this country."

Is simply a statement of fact. No bigotry there. I won't bother supplying examples of bigotry performed by Christians against me and my ilk as that can be seen in every news show, every political campaign, every political web site and so on.

They are trying to run the country and shove Christianity down our throats. They're not oppressed; they're trying to become oppressors.

That worries me a little.

on Christian principles that allowed YOU to have the rights you have. They didn't have to do it. They could have chosen to set up this country as a Protestant nation with a national religion - they didn't. They did everything they could to ensure that this nations citizens could worship as they chose - and they made those decisions "under God" with prayer in school, in congress, and it almost every founding document. Please.....be grateful - or at least appreciative - of how those founding Christians did it.

And I'll practice whatever religion I choose, or NOT choose, thank you. The people who came to this country fled religious persecution==THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE TOLD HOW TO WORSHIP. Fundamentalist Christians in this country are trying to do that right now. They want laws changed to reflect their brand of Christinaity and religion and they're trying to turn this country into a Theocracy. NO DAMN WAY!

Thanks for offering your amateur psychoanalysis. You rejected an OP that said "anti-Christian bigots, please leave your bigotry at the door". Seemed to me that you were offering a defense of your own bigotry even though you did not bother to provide any examples of it.

nice :P

I love parodies, expecially the way you distorted the title of the thread, posted your own assumption and then shot it down. A moron couldn't have done it better. Nice job :)

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

I wonder why you would be so offended at playful banter. Are you concerned you might be one of the people I'm poking fun at? I didn't drag you into this, you know.

check out the meaning of the word bigotry.

I am NOT saying that there are not 'christ'ians who are bigots,- I am not saying that some people hide their own personal hatred behind the banner of "religion"- but you cannot claim bigotry when it is being done to you, and cry "foul" when you are doing it to others.

Well, you can cry "foul" but don't expect people to take it as legitimate.



big·ot·ry /ˈbɪgətri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries. 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




—Synonyms 1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.


I despise bigotry, no matter what the "brand", or source.


peace~

Hey, whatever floats your boat. :P

Maybe that could be his new campaign slogan.

But the Obama camp would never play the race card, perish the thought...

Please thoughtfully read a post before you reply to it.

but it was more specifically about black people who doubt Barack's ability to compete in the race.


http://www.nbc11.com/politics/15082596/detail.html

One civil rights veteran who is backing Obama shares that view. Joseph Lowery, former head of the Southern Christian Leadership Council, calls colleagues who are supporting Clinton "good old boys."

"They are business-as-usual, old-guard politicians and it's hard for them to break out of that mold," Lowery said.

At a speech Wednesday before the Hungry Club at the Butler Street YMCA in Atlanta, Lowery said blacks who doubt Obama's ability to compete are guilty of "a slave mentality."

"No matter how much education they have, they never graduated from the slave mentality," Lowery said. "The slavery mentality compels us to say, 'We can't win, we can't do."'

Rev. Lowery did not, as you claimed, say "that if you're black and you don't {vote for Obama}, you have a slave mentality."

He did not say that. As you note in your most recent post,hHe said that blacks who "doubt Obama's ability to compete" have a "slave mentality. No matter how much education they have, they never graduated from the slave mentality. The slavery mentality compels us to say, 'We can't win, we can't do.'"

This is considerably different than saying that blacks who don't vote for Obama have a slave mentality. There are plenty of blacks who are not voting for Obama because they don't agree with him on the issues or because they think someone else will make better president. He wasn't talking about them. But there are some blacks who are not supporting him solely because they are afraid that he cannot win because he's black. This kind of thinking, Lowery says, reveals a slave mentality.

It's interesting to me that some of the same people who accuse any black person who points to the existence of discrimination in America as an impediment to their success of having a "slave" or "victim" mentality. Yet many of these same people are now trashing Rev. Lowery for expressing a similar sentiment when it comes to blacks who won't support Obama because they think he can't win.

But the bottom line is that if you "heard it said" by Lowery that blacks who don't support Obama have a "slave mentality."

I was merely providing a link to the actual statement to clarify.

As you'll note if you review my response, I specifically mentioned that the statement wasn't about being black and not voting for Obama; it was about being black and not thinking that he can compete.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3664/is_200501/ai_n9468522
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4170340&mesg_id=4170340

I too find the protracted criticism of Obama is conveniently turning a blind eye to the Third Way politics that meshed church and state in a craven political ploy for the center.

but I agree with your headline. I haven't read your whole post, but I just no too many good Christian folks to paint them all with the same brush.

because they're Christian? Or should we just kill ourselves so they don't even have to see us?

Please thoughtfully read a post before you reply to it.

1.) There's a definite anti-Christian bias on DU and it is bigotry in a different form.
2.) Obama is attacked here on DU unfairly for defending his identity.
3.) Hillary Rodham Clinton, as depicted in the numerous articles I quoted and linked, has made religion a very active part of her activities as a Senator.

If you would actually read all the article I quoted and linked I think you would have to seriously reconsider the tact you are taking.

If the articles I quoted are correct then Clinton's religious group that she closely prays with includes Sen. Santorum, Brownback, and others. Here is a quote:

"Ignorance cannot be an excuse here, because a Google search would tell you the Fellowship believes that Christian elites have a duty to rule the world, and serve Jesus Christ in a higher calling than their duties as leaders of nations. Plainly put, according to Sharlet, “the Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God’s plan.” The notion that Christian elites should rule the world for the rest of us, and should lead their countries not for the benefit of all, but to pursue God’s plan as defined by the Fellowship and founder Doug Coe runs contrary to what this country was founded upon, and is anything but progressive. "

Now if you want to debate Clinton's membership in that group, go ahead.

part.

you...

I guess I have a no tolerance policy for hatred

are liars. God made us all. He has no favorites. Don't blame Christians for people who do stuff and say God is good with it. Poor God. He isn't.

remember IT?

The term "seperation of church and state" never appears in the Constitution. What does appear in the First Amendment is a pair of clauses, one prohibiting the establishment of a state religion, a la the Church of England; and a clause protecting the free exercise of religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

People who invoke the Constitution to demand an absolute bar of religion in public life generally don't understand what the Constitution and the Court actually have said about the subject.

Now there are hypocrites who call themselves "Christians" who are bigots, but they are also liars and hypocrites, and therefore not really Christians at all.

If the entire bible were jettisoned and only the parts in red were left in it, I think we'd all have much better access to true Christianity. All that old testament stuff and some of the rest is clearly claptrap and has nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

Like all Christians do.

but they want it all. When an atheist can run for office without his/her atheism being an issue, I'll grant christians the same respect...

To be an open atheist would render a politician "unelectable" for state-wide or federal office, and probably state legislature, too, depending upon the state and the opponent.

A Jewish politician might someday be President (just not Lyin' Joe--please!), but remember what a stink there was about JFK being Catholic, less than 50 years ago?

I will (hopefully) live to see another 50 years of Presidential elections, but I very much doubt that I will see either an atheist or a believer in a non-Judeo-Christian faith (especially including Islam) elected President in my lifetime.

But "Christians" are still the "victims" of "bigotry"???

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

I have no problem with your faith (or anyone else's), as long as you keep it the heck away from our government.

Now THERE'S a GOOD use of "Don't Ask. Don't Tell."

As a Christian by birth and a liberal Christian by learning, I am disappointed in the way some of my fellow liberals view the Jerry Falwell style of religion as if it were mainstream Christianity.

Jerry Falwell and his ilk behave(d) as if Jesus never lived and the New Testament was never written.

They "love" their version of a vengeful God of the Old Testament and cherry-pick what suits them from that part of the Bible.

Their views are a heresy against the life, teachings and works of Jesus Christ, as most Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, United Church of Christs, Congregationalists, non-Southern Baptists and many Roman Catholics believe them to be.

Now you may dismiss all religions as nonsense, and I won't dispute you in doing that, but there are plenty of non-Christians who have made a "religion" out of their beliefs, too, with just as little concrete evidence to back them up.

So, thank you, OP, for your post.

.

"Christian story" is either myth or bullshit. That's not "bigotry." People who don't believe in the "Invisible Man in the Sky" and who aren't buying into Blue-Eyed Jesus or the thousands of other iterations of "Christianity" shopped by charlatans in shiny suits or fat fellahs in dresses shouldn't be called BIGOTS, they should be called "Inquiring Minds."

Stifling debate by tossing the BIGOT word at anyone who takes issue with ANY religion--be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or Worshipping A Pet Rock Every Other Tuesday--is a lame tactic. IMO.

I don't think you're paying close attention here--the Jews and the Muslims take their lumps, too. It ain't just the poor old Xtians getting kicked around every so often. The ones who get more of a pass are the Wiccans, actually--I haven't seen too many posts tearing up their "theology" here--if I've missed them, someone do provide a link! Come to think of it, the Shinto religion and Buddhism don't catch too much flak, either...

At any rate, anyone who takes issue with, does not believe in, or "dislikes" the tenets of a faith is NOT a bigot.

Frankly, I could give a shit if Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and Kucinich all get naked, cover themselves with blue paint, wear bowlers and worship a giant gerbil. It just doesn't matter to me. What DOES matter to me is if that Giant Gerbil starts telling the candidates that they need to base LAW on the tenets of the Giant Gerbil Church. If the Giant Gerbil wants to limit choice or infringe upon the rights of my gay friends and relatives, then I am going to have a LITTLE PROBLEM with the Giant Gerbil's 'theology.' And I am NOT gonna be quiet about it for fear of being scolded as a 'bigot.'

Thou Shalt Have No
Strange Giant Gerbils
Before ME!!!!!!

But, you know that already.

Q: Why didn't you capitalize Christ's name in "anti-Christian"?

Clinton and Edwards people are the ones who are perpetuating this religious attack.

To be quite honest, I have absolutely NO need or desire to attack or worry about any of the Democratic candidates and their religious beliefs. I DO take issue with someone like Mike Huckabee, and with any and all fundies in the world--I don't worry so much about the Islamic fundies because while they want to destroy us as a people, the Xtian fundies are far more worrisome to me. I could go into details, but we've all expended energy to the reasons to hate the religious right, so I would say that they are pretty much our main problem in the arena of keeping us a free and proper nation.

If we could get the religious right to shut their mouths and leave our constitution and bill of rights ALONE, we could move forward a lot easier.

To hell with the candidates' religions--they are who they are, regardless of their religious beliefs, and all of them are smart enough to keep their personal beliefs to themselves, and separate the role of religion from the running of the country.

I see you don't have any FUNDIE stuff on Edwards. GREAT!

How very Christian of you to decry an Anti-Christian ethos on DU, and then engage in bashing a candidate, for political, not religious purposes. You fit perfectly in the twisted world of all is fair as long as you predicate it on a Christian theme.

Ughhh......:thumbsdown:

somehow seem to have lost their "fake outrage" button and their anti-Christrian screed at a very convenient time.

How can their be such outrage at Obama for defending his identity but not at Clinton considering her membership in the "Fellowship" which is a very religious secretive organization within the senate who's membership list is an anathema to the left?

I'm just trying to confront hypocrisy.

We further abhor the blurring of the separation of church and state.

Why can't i put down religion? You change the constitution or something recently?

n/t

Poor persecuted Watchmen on the Walls, and the poor persecuted Christian Reconstruction Movement. And the poor persecuted "good moral people" who run the ex-gay movement for the tidy sum of $2000 a month per 'gay'. Poor persecuted Christians who get US faith-based funding to go to gay extermination rallies in Latvia (wikipedia Ken Hutcherson), poor persecuted Christians who deny the holocaust (Scott Lively, Tex Marrs, et al)

Looks like at this rate, we'll never have a Christian president. It'll never happen. There's just too much persecution against Christians in America.

Pobrecitos....

read because you obviously didn't get the message of the entire post.

are about the actual body of the post and all the stuff in BOLD that quotes and links that provide a very good case of Clinton's direct ties, association, and religious connection with Rick Santorum and other folks of the Fellowship.

So, all of a sudden, anti-gay Religious people don't bother you?

Please go ahead and tackle it because to this point no one has.

There ISN'T a bunch of anti-Christian (notice the capital "C") bigotry on DU.

it was only addressed to "some". If the shoe does not fit, then we must acquit. But that does not mean there aren't a few Cindarellas around.

I know you are trying to ignore it, but you can't.

God can take care of himself. Worry instead about your neighbors.

And that is what Jesus taught... among other wise men who taught the same.

Way to cut to the chase!

This isn't directed at the OP or anyone in particular, but I'd rather not see ANY bigotry on Democratic Underground.

"this nation was founded on religious freedom."

Really, I thought it was founded on the principle of no taxation without representation. Given that the Founders originally intended protest not revolution (the insanely excessive response from Whitehall forcing them to revolt), it's highly questionable how much effect religion had on the founding of the nation. If you refer to the BoR, you will notice that religion is only one of the freedoms enumerated and the arguement can as easily be made that any of teh others were the foundation of the nation.

"Singling out a particular religion, Christianity, and insulting it and the members of it is clearly anti-democratic."

No, it isn't. You are simply wrong there. You have the right to say what you like (within certain limits), you do NOT have the right to stop others having the right of response.

"Furthermore, the spiritual nexus of Christrianity is Jesus Christ, who has one of the most egalitarian, pro-peace, pro-social-justice messages out there."

Firstly, Jesus's message also includes passages about "render unto Caesar" and coming to bring a sword. Christianity posits that only Christians will get into heaven which is about the LEAST egalitarian thing I can think of. Finally, it's highly questionable whether Jesus is the "spiritual nexus" of Christianity or whether that accolade more poperly belongs to Paul.

However, unless their beliefs are as extreme as those of, say, Huckabee or Robertson, I also don't much give a shit about the religion. I have my faith, they have theirs and that's as it should be. Here (Britain), voters often don't even know a politician's faith. I didn't even know that Michael Howard, a high-profile Tory for decades and one-time leader of the party, was Jewish until he retired. In the case of the US, it is not so much that the society (or DU) is becoming more adversarial to Christianity and almost entirely the case that Christianity is losing the protected status it has had for years.

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

_______________________________________________________

Please don't tell me that you think the First Amendment should be disregarded.

The First Amendment also protects my right to criticize your religion.

This person reponded to my statement that the nation was founded on religious freedom. He inferred I had no foundation for that premise. I pointed out that my premise is based on the First Amendment of the Constitution. Now, how is that a straw man?

He didn't say that any of the Bill of Rights didn't count.

I addressed the first ammendment very clearly in my previous post. You are either ignoring what I said or twisting it to suit your own purposes (i.e. the "straw man" fallacy).

I never knew that!

:crazy:

in his cynical pandering to South Carolina Christian voters.

of who and what Clinton is involved in.

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

I'm asking people to have some principle and consistent set of standards.

Are you saying that Clinton's role and relationship in the Fellowship does not bother you? It may be hidden, but it is there. The sources I quoted are reliable sources, many of them left wing.

There's a dozen or more very anti-Christian insults made in this thread alone. But yet no one comments on how their candidate embraces Inhofe, Brownback, and Santorum in their prayer group. From the articles I've read, it seems more than symbolic.

You honestly don't want to look into that?

and prohibits both gay marriage and ordination of gays. Obama's church both ordains and marries gays.

Oh wait, you can't elect a church, only a person, and the person Obama says: "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

http://pilgrimsole.blogspot.com/2007/12/god-is-still-speaking.html

So, I'd call 'em even.

I know. I have friends who left the UMC because they came out to their bishops, and couldn't be ordained. They are now pastors in the United Church of Christ (which happens to be the same denomination Obama belongs to).

I find bigoted bishops, forcing people out of their lifelong church, hard to ignore. But that's me.

From the United Methodist Book of Discipline:


"Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals* are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church."

*Footnote –- "'Self-avowed practicing homosexual' is understood to mean that a person openly acknowledges to a bishop, district superintendent, district committee of ordained ministry, board of ordained ministry or clergy session that the person is a practicing homosexual." (Book of Discipline, Par. 304.3)
bullet "Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. Although we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching, we affirm that God's grace is available to all. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons." (From "The Nurturing Community," a section of the church's Social Principles, Par. 65G).
bullet "The council on shall be responsible for ensuring that no board, agency, committee, commission, or council shall give United Methodist funds to any gay caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality. The council shall have the right to stop such expenditures.* This restriction shall not limit the church's ministry in response to the HIV epidemic."

"*Reference is made to a Judicial Council Decision (491) that authorized the right of an annual conference to use funds to study homophobia and another (592) that gave the General Conference the right to create and fund a study of homosexuality." (Book of Discipline, Par. 806.12)
bullet "We affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a woman...Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches." (From Social Principles, Par. 65C).

After all Obama doesn't believe in all the doctrines of his church, he's opposed to gay marriage unlike his church.

Hillary's never said gays can't be ordained ministers, but knock yourself out looking for that quote if you want.

This is UMC doctrine. The UMC has official doctrine, in which it differs from Obama's church. To be UMC is to accept the Book of Discipline. The UCC has no Book of Discipline.

Hillary's a United Methodist. The above is what United Methodists believe.

I don't give a special pass to Hillary, I have no special fondness for her. If I felt she stabbed me in the back, the way Obama did with his handling of the McClurkin situation, I'd have a strong distrust of her too.

No, you're the one who's reaching. She's never spoken against her church's position, and her husband signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Hillary is no friend to the gay community.

It's her church, a choice she made. She does have something to do with it.

It's not like she's refused to disavow the church's position, if that quote existed you'd be all over it.

and she's chosen not to disavow it. If she's pro-gay, she should do it without being asked. But then, her husband signed DOMA and she hasn't disavowed that. So, why would she speak out against this?

And she has disavowed DOMA, there's three parts to it and she wants to repeal 2 of them. Whether her reasoning is correct or not, she believes it'd be wiser not to repeal the whole thing, so that it doesn't spark a renewed drive for the FMA. I think the only part remaining leaves it up to the states whether to call it marriage or civil unions. And just because Obama's promising to repeal it all, doesn't mean he would, or he'd be able to.

And why not repeal the whole thing? As much political posturing as Obama using McClurkin. Exactly the same thing.

And as I said, she says she doesn't want to repeal it all, because it'd spark another drive for the FMA (Federal Marriage Amendment.) And of course you'd say she's lying, yadda yadda. Are we through here yet? When Hillary has a bigot emcee one of her campaign events, who says God hates my kind in front of a cheering crowd, get back to me.

Which is worse?

Elizabeth Edwards has come out in favor of gay marriage, but I don't remember hearing about any similar pronouncements from Michelle. Not that it really matters, we're not electing the spouse.

as experience?

But how does that make her indistinguishable from Bill, just because she happens to also be married to him? I know some people like to act like she's just his sock-puppet, but I don't agree. She'll have the final say, and Bill will just be one of her advisors.

If she can claim being married to the president made her a "top advisor", then she needs to take responsibility for the actions of the person she was advising. Like DOMA.

She didn't have the final say, they weren't her decisions. And that doesn't disqualify her experience, she has top level experience in a two-term administration. She's been there and done that (or at least witnessed it) she knows the ropes, it is very valuable experience.

Hillary could govern well to the left of her husband for all we know. And the opposite could be true of Obama.

was to plan dinner parties. Nothing more.

As early as 1976, she was a campaign organizer for Carter for an entire state, and continued climbing the political ladder from there. She's never been Tammy Wynette standing by her man and baking cookies. To assert otherwise is sexist bullshit.

HRC is my LAST choice!

And yes, her attempts to get the religious vote bother me a lot.

But first you said don't knock Christianity; now you're saying we should hold all panderers accountable (which I agree with!). Seems like this thread changed horses in midstream.

each other. The things I suggest have not changed and no where have I challenged Clinton for her religious activity in the Senate. I'm just asking people to ask themselves how they feel about it and how they feel about anti-Christian bigotry on DU.

?

Tell your guy to drop his bigot pals and then come try to sell him to me. Hillary's got nothing to do with it. I don't like her much. But she did not hire some preacher to bash my family at her campaign events, so I can not hold her to task in the way I do Obama. She did not offend me- he did. So the issue is with him. My issue. You want to deal with Hillary, feel free, but don't expect others to carry water for you.
In my Bible Jesus says that all people who pray in public do so for worldly glory, and that God does not hear those prayers. And yet Obama prays in public, so is Jesus wrong or what?
But this idea that Obama's cult of hate ties are going to go unmentioned is out of the question. If it bugs you, talk to Obama about it.

His cookie cutter response won't work here. Thanks for the great post!

openly anti-gay supporter out there front and center in his campaign. It does strike me as a pander. I've never once tried to defend his position or tear down a thread that brought up the McClurkin issue.

I believe in acceptance.

I think acceptance of Christians on DU is also important, don't you?

I reject bigotry.

I reject McClurkin's position. I reject the misguided logic that caused Obama to put McClurkin on the stage.

But I don't reject McClurkin because of him being Christian. I reject how he and other Christians misuse their religion to persecute Gays and others they don't agree with.

Some here want to make a distinction between what Obama did, which was a pander, and what Clinton does in her secretive Senate group, the Fellowship and that is fair on many grounds. However, there's still an apparent warm embrace between Clinton and some very bigoted people in the Fellowship, and it seems to more than just a superficial affair.

And considering that Clinton will likely be the nominee, I don't see how you can "forget her!"

Her husband, Bill Clinton, signed the Defense of Marriage Act, and I can't vote for anybody who uses somebody like that on her campaign trail.

:hi:

and her husband signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Why does she get a pass?

Poor little Christian thinks he's being persecuted. Sniff, wah!

:sarcasm:

Now that I've read your post, perhaps you'll do the courtesy of reading these:

What Religion's Blind Stranglehold on America Is Doing to Our Democracy From Alternet

Out of the Mouths of Wingnuts You think Christians deal with "persecution"? Try being an atheist in this country.

I Don't Need Pandering, Just Give Me My Rights See how much easier it would be if candidates didn't have to do all of that sermonizing and wooing of the religious. Imagine if Obama didn't have to "prove" how Christian he was. Imagine if all they had to do was tell us what they'd do as president, not preacher.

I have great concern about that. But the condoning of fusing religious power with political power is not at all what my OP is about. I am dead set against it.

However, what you will find in the "Fellowship", the Religious group in the Senate that Hillary Clinton is in, is the notion that they are to be rulers of the world in a sense and use their religion as a fuel for that power. These are not my words, but is culled from what you will read if you go through the article at the third link.

Now, I think people are entitled to their religious beliefs and I think skepticism is healthy.

I'm very cool with Clinton being a proud Christian and a practicing one. I'm just suprised that many here just don't really know much about Clinton's connection to the Fellowship of the Senate. And if they know, where has the discussion about it been?

It's a very interesting fact about Clinton.

I've known about it for a long time and I've never liked it. Being an evil atheist I pick up on such things. ;-)

I don't care one way or another if somebody wants to be religious or what religion they choose. What I detest is the way some feel that their religion should be used to wield power over others, that it belongs in government, that it makes them superior to others (morally or otherwise), etc. Religion should be something a person uses to guide their own life, not something they use to shove other people around.

Separation of Church and State needs to be enforced, for the good of all.

As a Christian, I don't feel sorry for myself or other Christians here. Sure, some post a lot of snark and even anger. I understand where most of it's coming from, and it's fine. It's a Dem board, and we're the big tent party. :) Also, it's not like Christians are always perfect or have never hurt anyone. Sometimes it gets to me a bit, and then I say something, but most of the time I treat it like a great chance to understand my neighbor and learn where he's coming from so I can make sure to be respectful and loving the next time instead of accidentally hurtful.

and I'll pour scorn on a Buddhist or Muslim or Christian or Scientologist equally. All religions are fundamentally bad for humanity. We would be infinitely better off if they all vanished over night.

than selective bigotry but it's a form of prejudice all the same.

if you're going to believe in idiotic fairy tales, you'd better steel yourself up for some criticism.

and like all those damned bigots who hate nascar, or who hate whalers, or hate people who club baby seals, or who hate walmart, or who hate corporations, or who hate assholes, or who hate racists, or who hate the kkk, or the ccc, or capitalists, or who hate communists, or who hate bob jones university.

the reason it's wrong to be racist isn't because it's inherently wrong to single out single classes of people to dislike (though, obviously, at least some of those people might be perfectly decent people, especially in other areas of their life). the problem with racism is that someone's race is an illegitimate basis on which to make a reasonable judgement about them. it's insufficient information. "black" or "white" or "hispanic," and for that matter "male" or "female" doesn't tell you anything useful about whether someone is a worthwhile human being. but their voluntary associations (republican, muslim, christian, boy scout, heritage foundation), while certainly imperfect, tell you considerably more. some, obviously, a bit more than others.

:banghead:

Machine gunning straw men is fun!!!

Beliefs can be criticized no matter where they originate from, simply saying your beliefs are religious does not make it bigotry to criticize them. If someone were to attack a person simply for being born into a Christian family that would be bigotry, but criticizing the religious practices that they choose to take part in is not bigotry. People can choose what beliefs they want to follow, and if their beliefs have no basis in fact then people have the right to point out that their beliefs have no basis in fact. I don't criticize spiritual beliefs that pose me no threat, but when a person tries to bring their religious beliefs into the public sphere I will attack those beliefs just as I would attack any other political beliefs I disagree with. When the religious becomes political as it often does then we not only can debate the validity of it, but we must debate it.

Beyond that, if it gets you to the light, it's all right.

This is an important difference. Take all religion out, respect none of it in the making or enforcing of laws.

which is basically none. Xtians are some of the most judgmental of cretins~~~doesn't matter who is doing what to whom, where and when, they have to stick their noses in it. It was not enough that they fought and warred in Europe to control everything they saw (and burned/drowned/boiled all 'heretics'), but they had to come to the Americas to rob and steal from the "Indians" and to force them into conversion or slaughter them for their beliefs.

A fart on Obama for proclaiming himself a "PROUD Christian", as if that should make him a better man.:puke:

I don't have to respect their Christianity and agree not to criticize it. If I went around proudly proclaiming a bunch of fairy-tale like beliefs unsupported by science, I'd expect to be roundly criticized about it.

Every bit as ugly, unfair and self-destructive as those who are homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.

It is wrong, and unacceptable.


peace~

And a pretty tame one at that, compared to other posts in this thread, which are also mere opinions about Christianity.

saying your statement is an "opinion"?

I'm not playing these games with you anymore. The mods delete bigoted posts. You can't just throw that charge out there whenever anyone disagrees with you.

Hillary's prohibits both of these practices. Just thought you should know.

in an article praising Farrakhan to the heavens...farrakhan who has called Judaism "a dirty religion". Meanwhile Obama panders to the anti~gay bigoted preacher McClurkin and Obama gives him the pulpit from which to espouse his hate and bigotry. Sorry, but I am not buying into the lie that Obama is a friend to the LGBTQ community.

Here is what Trinity UCC says about its theology:

http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm

Why bother asking for a link if you won't bother reading it? Keep burying your head...but the Obama's Farrkhan test is in the offing. I'm putting you on ignore because I don't have any more time to waste.:hi:

I'm trained to go to primary sources.

Or offered through them. Check their Website.

And look what shows up as a feature: http://www.trumpetmag.com/current_issue.cfm


This month's articles

*

Table of Contents (PDF)
*

Publisher's Page (PDF)
* Featured Articles:

Genarlow Wilson: Justice Deferred

An Empowerment Interview: The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan

The Message: - "The Life of the Spirit - Dr. Asa Hilliard" By Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.



That's from the source.

they want "hopes and dreams". I think it's creepy to belong to a church that praises Farrakhan as "honorable".

:hi: to you, Buffy.

i hope you realize that.

I cannot beging to tell you how sad that makes me.

Showing each Christian the same respect you receive from them etc? Or are you lumping them all together and saying "fuckem".

I wouldn't call it an epidemic.
I find it hard to be a Christian sometimes...not because I feel 'oppressed,' but more like I get sick of what people in my religion do.
It sucks...I'm not going to just give up. I'm going to fight the bigots as hard as I can, because right now, the loudest voices are the ones filled with hate...if those of us believers that don't subscribe to that rubbish don't speak up, how will our voices be heard?

pandering to the wacky evangelists, who are about to be taken down, AGAIN, in
Florida - being investigated cause they ride around in Rolls Royces and have several luxurious homes, while their contributors live on social security and send most of it to keep their ministers in the lifestyle they want to be accustomed to.

Like the minister said at Falwell's funeral, doesn't anybody have anything good
to say about this man?

After he asked it 3 times, a voice came up from the back of the church.

It's good, he's gone to meet his maker.

Because it condemns people like me to eternal torment, and people that believe I deserve eternal torment if their god decides to toss me into hell for being 'rebellious",gay,a non christian,I rejected christ,and I reject the bible and the christian god..I know people who believe in the christian god will be tainted by their own religion's attitudes that are bigoted because the bible supports bigotry and the churches have historically not been all that tolerant of witches,freaks gays,and trans-people.

Joan of Arc was a christian and very likely a trans-man,and s/he was murdered by christians,who believed in god,supported by the church, for not wearing female gendered attire..Taken straight from leviticus was the rationale for burning this person to death.

That is the effect of bible based bigotry on a queer person, long ago bigotry is still toxic even if written in the bible and still a significant amount of christians are taught the word is from god and it is sacred yet regardless of what believers try to say to deny it the bible is full of bigotry and sometimes horrible things.

You can't have it both ways Christians: either decide there is a need to be clear about this problem ,and edit out the bigotry from the bible, or you can admit the christian god speaks bigoted things in his' holy' words and many of the church and believers have accepted bigotry as truth and some do act on it..religion has been a motive to get christians to murder people based in the beliefs and words in the christian bible.
I have been hurt by christians because I was pagan,I have had rocks tossed at me because I am a trans-man. My own Aunt who is a christian gives me crap because I am queer and dammed. I am sick of christians trying to dominate me through the state and through laws. Dominion-ism is anti democratic and evil. And Dominion-ism is a belief some churches have and promote and use the bible to justify it. The bible says I am an abomination. How many more gay people have to die,how many more pagans have to hide from their christian parents they do not believe christianity, before Christians get the courage to admit the bible is bigoted, the bible is toxic to humankind and it is no moral guide for humanity's ethics.More deaths, suicides,families torn apart, women forced to be pregnant,kids abused, indigenous cultures destroyed, and holy wars have been fought in the name of god than the church or christians want to admit. When will it stop?

I used to think I was a Christian. Thanks for setting me straight! :hi:

Damns people like me to eternal torment. And some Christians kill gays because they are called an abomination in the bible. Now if you think that is wrong,why not get other christians like yourself and get churches that are NOT bigots to consider EDITING that shit Rome left in the bible, OUT of the bible?

Why won't the church edit the bigot talk OUT of the bible?? Why do so many christians go into denial and rationalize, minimize, backpedal,make exceptions,whenever christian is confronted by the bigotry in biblical text??

The Roman State created the council of Nicea. They edited the bible,and they tossed out ALL the gnostic wisdom and more inclusive texts written during those times because it was not respectful enough of state authorities and condemned bullies. Gnosis lacked hate,threats,social control, hierarchy and scapegoats to make the people unite under imperial Rome..So the gnostic parts of early christianity were confiscated by the Roman gestapo and burned.And Rome was united under Constantine,and the church.And soon came dark ages..and the murder of Cathars,Albigenisans,Valentinians,Lyons,and other countless gnostic sects.
But some gnostic people buried these excluded and endangered texts that condemn some of the bigotry that Rome thought was good to leave in the bible .Because Imperial Rome wanted to silence some of the truths and dissident voices that were preserved in scrolls in those jars hidden long ago from the council of Nicea and the clergy seeking to destroy evidence of other perspectives,that were years and years later found at Nag Hammadi.

Ethics unites; faith divides.

Christianity IS socially conservative. The bible is conservative, it has a few liberal statements but the overall tone is conservative.

People who say they root their ethics in traditional Christianity very often come up with the same ethical standards as secular folks.

we have a thread where someone who is a Christian, like myself, has read so many attacking posts of Christians in posts here (because of the idiotic, hateful, mysoginist, gay-bashing actions of quite a few who call themselves that) and they write a well-intended comment. But what I would say to the OP is, the ignorant, mindless, actions of quite a few who call themselves something other than Christian do not represent the mass behaviors of the rest. The rude people are pretty content in calling Christians idiots who believe in fairy tales, love torture, etc, etc, etc. Just pray for them. The rest of the people on here who are another faith, or do not believe in the God we believe is truly there, or believe in another type of power, are spectators to their poor behavior, too, and they know who the idiots are...

:hug: lets move on & just click alert to the posts attacking you directly for your faith or says you're anything other than misguided for your beliefs (like you're a fool, lacking a brain, poor whiny Christian, etc, those are personal attacks).

God bless you.