Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Leave Christians Alone!!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 02:58 PM
Original message
Leave Christians Alone!!
OK, time for my occasional this is whats wrong with the left rant. I am an agnostic. That being said as a LIBERAL, I am deeply indebted to Christian ministers like Reinhold Niebuhr, Pat Tillich, Walter Rausenbach, and MLK, not to mention politicians with deeply held Christian beliefs like Charles Sumner, William Jennings Bryant, and RFK.

There is Christianity beyond the the fundies, I know many of you claim to know that, but it is not particularly apparent by your posts. People like Niebuhr use a Christian ethic for an extremely worldly and complex philosophy of man that is as relevant to politics as anything that comes out of the secular world. I would suggest, to people hung up on how much smarter humanists are then Christians, that if they really want to be smart give it a read. Tolerance and freedom of inquiry cuts both ways....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think I'll be having popcorn for lunch
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. It's not normal Christians, it's the extremists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. Fair enough. Is it ok if we use the modifier "Right Wing Whack Job "
Christians to distinguinsh from the many other kinds of Christians?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neocondriac Donating Member (732 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
4. You're generalizing also......
Let's take each person on their own specific merits. Being Christian doesn't make you good or bad. It's who you choose to wield that over or for is what matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Where did I say all Christians are good?
Nowhere in the post does it say that, and I don't see where you could even draw the implication.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neocondriac Donating Member (732 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. Where did you get that? ....
Jesus, I'm an agnostic also. Find a freeper to argue with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
5. Who is molesting Christians
and how?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThumperDumper Donating Member (368 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
6. We need to collectively sell...
Democratic values AS values. We can talk about the same values in either a secular or a religious way, but they don't NECCESSARILY have to be one or the other. I think there's a REAL good case to be made that our values are ones that appeal to Christians and also make sense from a secular point of view.

But it's our values that unite us, and our reasoning for it is secondary. -JJ


Shameless plug: http://jaundicejames.blogspot.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. Oh brother.
I'm not indebted to ANYONE because of their religion.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rkc3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I'm indebted to people because they helped bury the bodies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. I know what you mean
It's the same way with me and the guy at the cement factory. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
28. Nobody said you were
but assuming your a liberal, you should be indebted to those people on their basis of advancing the philosophical and political beliefs you hold dear, and have enough RESPECT for them not to put down their beliefs. I'd like to see where American Liberalism would be without that list of people, or actually I really wouldn't...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. This is a political forum.
Over sensitive people need to go find a feel good place to hang out if they're looking for warm fuzzies, puppy dogs and lollipops.

Cuz this ain't it.

We are at war with religious fundamentalists in this country.

Most intelligent liberal christians are more than capable of understanding that rants directed at the talibornagains do not include them.

And for the occasional anti-religious snark, boo frickin' hoo.

They don't reflect the opinions of anyone but themselves and certainly don't merit the inevitable backlash of sickening christian persecution rants they seem to generate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. Well aren't you a tough guy putting down Christians
over the internet:wtf:

It has nothing to do with being sensitive, it has to do with showing people basic respect and treating them with the same open mindedness that you would like to be treated. People on DU wouldn't like if general negative connotations were made on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, or anything else of the like that should include religon....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Show me WHERE I "put down christians".
Nice accusation.

Got anything to back it up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. You're on this thread attacking an OP
Edited on Mon Nov-07-05 05:12 PM by BL611
that made no other statement except to show that many Christians have played important roles in progressive movements and should be accorded the same respect everyone else is. What would you call that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. I think you need to look up the definition of "attack".
Hoo boy.

Now sarcasm is an attack.

Or was it the smilie :eyes: ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
heidler1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #45
151. Is it only the fundies who are pushing to get Intelligent Design into
science class? I DON"T THINK SO. Does I.D. lead to a backward country? I DO THINK SO. Should we all be concerned about this? I THINK SO. Is it OK to ridicule the the I.D. effort? IMO YES.

Is it only the Fundies that want Christianity to be the national Religion? I DON"T THINK SO. Do we have to stand against this? I THINK SO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #32
106. ~~
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #106
107. Yippee!
Arwalden's back!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Double T Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
10. It is the fundamentalist, extremist, overbearing nut case christians......
I won't leave alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kweerwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. That group would be less of a problem ...
... if the real Christians got more involved in speaking out against them.

Kind of reminds me of what Jesus taught about "because you are neither hot or cold I will spit you out."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
11. There is a Christian problem
You and many other Christians may not be part of it. But there is a dedicated and active group of Christians that have broken with the social contract and are committed to forcing their sense of dogmatic moral authority on the rest of us. We are going to fight them. It is a Christian problem.

Furthermore I do not recall reading anywhere that Jesus said it would be easy to follow him. He even taught that those who choose to follow him will alienate their own family. So do not be suprised when those not as close to you may mistake your intent or the creed you follow.

I as an atheist have to struggle with the public persona of being an angry antisocial person simply because I do not believe in god. You as a Christian have to struggle with the persona of being a self rigtheous theocratic wannabe. This is the public persona each of us are burdened with. It is our job to overcome this. It is the cross we bare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. I am not a Christian!!!!
Read the OP!!!The second sentence says I am an agnostic!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Ok!!
:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GrpCaptMandrake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
13. I understand your point, I think
Perhaps it is aimed just at the DU community. If so, then it's a gentle call for tolerance among us all.

If not, however, I might gently suggest that it's the Religion Industry that refuses to leave "us" alone in the larger national debate. We're not trying to force anything on them; rather, the Religion Industry is trying to "christianize" an America that doesn't necessarily want that. Witness Abraham Foxman's recent statement to the Anti-Defamation League's national commission in NYC this past weekend.

"'Today we face a better financed, more sophisicated, coordinated, unified, energized and organized coalition of groups in opposition to our policy positions on church-state separation than ever before. Their goal is to implement their Christian worldview. To Christianize America. To save us!' he said."

When the ADL's national director says that, I tend to listen.

More than anything, the real Christians simply *must* be more vocal in opposiing the evangelofascists of the Religion Industry. That makes the task of opposing the hateful Falwells, Dobsons, Robertsons and their trollish followers a much simpler task.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchtv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
14. poor Xians being persecuted
Edited on Mon Nov-07-05 03:28 PM by mitchtv
my heart bleeds
give it a rest, Clean up your house. Stop Xians from persecuting others is the best way to stop it. Whining about others will not help.This is true of some more than others. It looks as if the Methodists ave woken up, Better late than never, I suppose. Baptists on the other hand preach hate which is heretical to Jesus, and deserve a swift boot in the ass. Catholicism is under control of a Nazi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Christians were out ahead during anti-slavery, civil rights, labour laws,
& FDR. We have discussed this. The walk the walkers are cool. Religion is a human ability. Why are we all of a sudden painting all Xtians with the same brush? The problem is a few fundies and evangelicals whose leaders have been co-opted by the neocons and GOP.

Why have we put on blindfolds all of a sudden. This week?

You have to wonder if it isn't talking points from the right - afraid of loosing the last 35% of Bush support.

What is up with the multiple, blind hatred, messages attack all religious types? Religion, like atheleticism, is a human ability. It does good - it does bad. But a good portion of the walk the walkers doing amazing stuff with their lives and help others.

What about Jessie Jackson?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #14
23. Clearly you did not read the OP at all
So I won't bother responding to your non response...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
16. Yeah - there seems to be a "BIG TREND" to insult all religious types.
What happened to the happy compromise we had reached where we only discussed the Christian right or the wing-nuts. You know... the small group who want control & power over all institutions including science?

What happened this week that made so many DUers go into "I hate all religious - they are all awful" mode?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Really?
Point out all of those threads, would you?

I must have missed them.

Or are you just joining the daily whine-in?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. In the last few days - on this board and others - yes - it has been
"ATTACK ALL CHRISTIANS and don't use nuance or grey thinking". If you have not noticed it - you should perk up your ears.

Started around the time Jessie Jackson mentioned Profit-Pulpits and Carter went on Larry King and slammed the Xtian right.
Now the Vatican and the British Bishops are slamming ID.

We have more reason than ever to connect to our christian pals.

Why this week do so many on the boards - turn adolescent in their arguments on religion and loose compassion and humanism?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #19
29. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. Oh my- we must work on remembering the Christian bashing threads, else
there will be more threads like your post that will have a handicap in the discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. You mean the one or two that are immediately followed up
Edited on Mon Nov-07-05 04:36 PM by beam me up scottie
by sustained periods of retaliatory and persecution rants from christians?

Like yours, for example?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. I'm not a christian. I'm agnostic and know the Christian tradition.
Since when is it okay to start a discussion in black and white and then complain when it goes "shades of grey".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #27
35. How about paying attention?
The post you are replying to wasn't directed at you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #24
31. " long sustained periods " - peace - and for a " long sustained period "
:toast:

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. How am I handicapping the discussion when I ask that we think like
adults and do not generalize or tribalize or slap many religious DUers in the face?

Go and read the rules. We are not supposed to be "attacking" the person. We fight the issues. Not the things people cannot change about themselves because they were born that way and it is a normal and perfectly human way to be.

Is this the only thread where someone posted hateful generalizations and someone took issue with that?

You need to do some searches. Search the word "generalization" "tolerance" they pop up here quite a bit.

Admin doesn't like flame wars. You start them by starting threads that hate something intrinsic to being human.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. I am agreeing with you and I appear to not be making that clear
I don't like flame wars - but I will not let a bully push the DU group off mission.

And the mission is politics.

Beam always says she has not seen Christian bashing threads (she and I have a passive aggressive thing going - or so I am told) - so I responded.

You were just into being a nice person - and I thank you for that.

I did not mean to imply in any way a criticism of you.

:toast:

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Difference between a bully and a victim of a bully striking back?
The thing that keeps getting forgotten is our society is pretty nasty to atheists. Some atheists get a little fiesty because of that. They return what they believe they have been given. They take the Christians at their word that they treat others how they wish to be treated. So they return what they have been given.

There was someone that had a great idea. Wear an atheist teeshirt for a week. I saw a great one just yesterday. It said "Friendly neighborhood atheist". See how people react. It won't be a perfect reflection of what life is like for us. But it will give a hint.

We have no elected officials. We have no voice in the halls of power (caveat we finally have one lobbiest). There are states and cities where we cannot legally hold office. We are demeaned on TV on a daily basis. We find our jobs in jeopardy if we expose our beliefs. Even our safety is placed in danger should we make ourselves known. Kind of cuts down on our ability to find other atheists to socialize with, which of course means our comfort zone is even more chewed into.

We are not the bullies. You should talk to the people that are the bullies. That is if you are concerned about bullies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. Folks should not dump on other folks - that said - everyone must
find a way to react to being dumped on.

Just about everyone I know gives a pass on insensitive, or not knowing, or gentle tease. Everyone I know of gets annoyed by excessive in your face religious activism - even when the religion is there own, or when the religion is atheism.

The people I hang with do not dump on atheists. I do not dump on atheists.

But I will not allow excessive dumping on Christians, or any other religion. If I saw dumping on atheists on DU I would be posting that it must stop. I have not seen dumping on atheists on DU. Indeed the title of my post was harsh only because it mimics the prior dump on Christians - and indeed I was uncomfortable posting such a title - and tried to make that clear in the first two paragraphs.

Everyone must choose a spot where they draw the line that is the start of "excessive".

Todays IQ post was for me over that line. It was in your face bullying - and I am indeed concerned about bullies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. It was pointless
But again I find the comparison to Black is Beautiful. I don't think it was an effective meme but I understand how those behind it thought it was empowering.

The trouble comes when one percieves a flawed attempt to empower one's own group at the expense of another. You don't correct the problem by reversing the discrimination. The initial statement is being made in an attempt to empower an oppressed minority. That need is still there. They may be availing themself of a flawed means but their need is still present.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #40
47. I have no desire to not "empower" those who are atheist - and indeed
would help if I knew what power was desired.

Civil rights was an obvious need, but bias against religion, or lack of religion, tends to be hidden too well to be dug out by a legal action.

And like bias against fat and short and not beautiful and bias against those without a symmetrical face, bias against religious and bias against atheists is something we stop by teaching our kids to not have it. I think I have done that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #47
52. Social acceptance
Thats a big one. We simply do not have it. And unfortunately some have taken societies rejection and decided to return the favor.

How I would have handled that post that started all this (and in fact did) would be to disavow the dissmissive attitude while acknowledging the right of all people to be involved in society.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. So you insulted all DU atheists because one poster insulted christians?
Right, your broadbrush insult was definitely justified. :eyes:

WWJI ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #33
42. Umm
As an agnostic who has lived in the reddest of red states...while serving in the military...I happen to believe there are far greater injustices in the world then the "persecution" of American atheist/agnostics. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Yeah, it's too bad we can't hold office in some states.
We should just suck it up and stop demanding equal rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. Somehow
(and I hate to make assumptions about things I don't know) I would think that there are people out there who are suffering graver injustices then you...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #46
50. Right. So that makes being discriminated against in your own country okay.
Got it. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. What are you talking about?
Again, I'm an agnostic myself as I've stated several times already. Yes people will show some intolerance toward you, the answer is not to be as narrow minded toward them. You're not exactly a black child in the jim crow south. Get over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #54
58. You ignore the list of states where discrimination is legal.
Edited on Mon Nov-07-05 06:23 PM by beam me up scottie
And then go on to lecture me about intolerance.

The red herring that you're waving around stinks.

I have NEVER been intolerant towards believers because of their beliefs.

Just bigots, hypocrites and their apologists of all kinds.

;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #54
79. I'm still waiting for an answer about
the discriminatory laws on the books in this country.

Are we supposed to ignore them and accept being treated as second class citizens?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #43
48. Where? What state?
:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. Kansas
& the boondocks of Missouri...
Not to mention speniding several of my teenage years in NC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #48
53. Pick one:
From religious tolerance.org

The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) allows people to be excluded from holding office on religious grounds. An official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

This would specifically exclude all Atheists and Agnostics from holding public office. It would also exclude:
* Most Buddhists, who do not believe in a personal deity.
* Members of the Church of Satan; they are typically agnostics.
* Some Unitarian Universalists.
* Some followers of the New Age who do not believe in the existence of a personal deity

However, Wiccans and Zoroastrians are acceptable, as they believe in two deities -- twice as many as Section 4 requires. Hindus would also be good enough because they generally acknowledge the existence of millions of deities. The number, gender, shape, size and other attributes do not matter, as long as you believe that a Supreme Being of some sort exists.

This form of religious intolerance is not limited to Texas. Six other states ( MA, MD, NC, PA, SC and TN) all have similar language included in their Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights, or in the body of their constitutions.

In a few states whose constitutions include the text of the oath of office, the candidate must swear an oath to God. Such an oath would prevent ethical non-theists from taking office.

However, now that these Constitutions include discriminatory and intolerant language, the states are probably stuck with it. The passages will forever affirm that people who follow some minority religions were considered unreliable second- class citizens of questionable morality -- at least at the time that the state constitutions were written. They could only be removed through constitutional change; this requires at least a majority vote of the citizens of the state. With the present political leadership and religious climate towards non-theists, this is not going to happen.

*********************************************************************

* Maryland's Bill of Rights: Article 36:

" That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come."

Comments: In this state, a juror or witness might be considered incompetent if they do not believe in the existence of God. Although humans worship many Gods, the Article does not specify which one is being referred to; presumably it is the Judeo-Christian deity. Not only must a person believe in such a deity, but they must apparently believe in a Heaven and a Hell.


* Massachusetts' Declaration of Rights:

* Article III:
"As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."

Comments: The constitution allows individual municipal bodies to tax everyone (Anglicans, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Protestants, non-believers, etc.) in order to maintain Protestant clergy.
* Article:
"...every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law."

Comments: All Christian denominations are considered of equal status, and are to be equally protected under the law. Non-Christian groups appear to be left out in the cold.


* North Carolina's Constitution, Article 6 Sec. 8:

" Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God...."

Comments: "Almighty God" apparently refers to the Judeo-Christian God. This Section would appear to disqualify anyone who is not a Christian or Jew from holding office in the State.


* Pennsylvani a Declaration of Rights: Article 1, Section 4:

"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

Comments: Apparently anyone who denies the existence of God OR who denies the existence of heaven and hell can be held ineligible to hold office or be a member of the PA civil service.


* South Carolina's Constitution, Article 4 Section 2:

" Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

Comments: "The Supreme Being" apparently refers specifically to the Judeo-Christian God. This Section would appear to disqualify anyone who is not a Christian or Jew from holding office in the State.


* South Dakota: We could not locate a copy of its Constitution on the Internet.


* Tennessee's Bill of Rights: Article 9:

* Section 4: " That no political or religious test, other than an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of this state, shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state."
* Section 2. " No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

Comments: Section 4 says that there is to be no religious test. Section 2 is that there is a religious test. Nobody who denies God or heaven or hell can hold office.


* Texas' Bill of Rights Section 4:

" RELIGIOUS TESTS: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

Comments: As noted above, only theists can hold office civil servant in Texas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. Good list, stealing it
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. You might as well, the two that asked for it left
before reading it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #56
91. Why the lies- at least the Mass provision is a lie - is any of it true and
Edited on Mon Nov-07-05 08:40 PM by papau
current law?

For the record I went to the Mass Constitution and found that the quoted words long ago were tossed.

Below is the current wording:

Article XI. Instead of the third article of the bill of rights, the following modification and amendment thereof is substituted.

"As the public worship of God and instructions in piety, religion and morality, promote the happiness and prosperity of a people and the security of a republican government; -- therefore, the several religious societies of this commonwealth, whether corporate or unincorporate, at any meeting legally warned and holden for that purpose, shall ever have the right to elect their pastors or religious teachers, to contract with them for their support, to raise money for erecting and repairing houses for public worship, for the maintenance of religious instruction, and for the payment of necessary expenses: and all persons belonging to any religious society shall be taken and held to be members, until they shall file with the clerk of such society, a written notice, declaring the dissolution of their membership, and thenceforth shall not be liable for any grant or contract which may be thereafter made, or entered into by such society: -- and all religious sects and denominations, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good citizens of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law." http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm#cart046.htm and XLVIII, http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm#cart048.htm The Initiative, section 2, and The Referendum, section 2>.

Why can folks not agree bias is bad, not all are biased , and that the whining about one being biased against on DU is getting a little old?

And when you know that on DU everything posted is checked by others - why try to slip a lie like the above portion of the post on Mass past the group.

The point that the Girl Scouts are not covered as to their Girl Scouting -and atheists as to atheism activity, whatever that is - by a provision on religious tolerance is somehow a problem?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #91
92. You forgot this part:
Article VI. Instead of the oath of allegiance prescribed by the constitution, the following oath shall be taken and subscribed by every person chosen or appointed to any office, civil or military under the government of this commonwealth, before he shall enter on the duties of his office, to wit:

"I, A. B., do solemnly swear, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God."

Provided, That when any person shall be of the denomination called Quakers, and shall decline taking said oath, he shall make his affirmation in the foregoing form, omitting the word "swear" and inserting instead thereof the word "affirm;" and omitting the words "So help me God," and subjoining, instead thereof, the words "This I do under the pains and penalties of perjury." .


http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm#cart011.htm



Awwwwwwwwwww, poor poor papau, it must have taken you hours to look that up and minutes for me to ruin it for you.

I'm SO sorry.

:nopity:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #92
99. Grab your LexisNexis password and search for how "Quaker" is
applied in Mass. to those professing no God and elected to office. Indeed just call the State House if you want to avoid the LexisNexis charge. Hint - "Solemnly affirm" perhaps with " under the pains and penalties of perjury " works in every state I know of.

What law school did you go to, or law tasks did you work at in your life experiences?

I am sure you are not stupid - but that was careless.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #99
104. Is an atheist now considered a quaker in Massachusetts?
I would like to see where the law states that atheists and other non-christians are considered quakers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #104
108. That is news to me
And I know a lot of Quakers. Nice people. But we definately disagree on the point of whether god exists or not. They commune with him I haven't heard a peep from him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #108
111. I know a quaker on DU that would be horrified
to think I was in the same club.
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #104
129. Not considered a Quaker - but the oath requirements for Quakers apply to
non-believers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #129
132. Really? Prove it.
I have no idea when that amendment was made and it was and is far more acceptable to be a christian quaker than a non christian in this country.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #99
122. That was this J.D.'s understanding, Papau.
It was my understanding that most states provided for affirmation if the person was not comfortable taking an oath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #122
131. Thanks for the back up. :-)
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #33
68. Az, are people actually precluded from running for office because
they are atheists, or is there just an old law on the books?

Wouldn't that violate the United States Constituion which forbids a religious test for office?

I need to research the case law on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #68
73. beam me up scottie posted an excellent list here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x33875#34171

The catch is in the oath of office. The elected official is required by law to swear an oathe to god. This is simply something no honest atheist can do. In places where these laws are still on the books an atheist can't even be elected dog catcher. No oath no office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #73
75. I saw his list .. and it seemed complete.
I was just wondering if anyone ever challenged it in court.

For example, there are still laws against kissing in public on the books in some states; there is no enforcement of them, however.

I'll have to do some research in the case law, and see if any atheist ever won an office, and then did not actually assume office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. "if an atheist ever won an office"?
Now THAT I'd like to see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #77
121. I'm sure you would, BMUS.
Edited on Mon Nov-07-05 10:41 PM by Maat
And that would be fine (as long as he wasn't a Rethuglican).

My point was that you to have a plaintiff that has suffered actual, definite, concrete and particularized harm ... eh, I'll save you my poor man's ConLaw lecture.

We need to challenge the law, to prevent its implementation. Getting it off of the books is another matter.

And I'd volunteer to help with the case as a law clerk (research for the attorneys involved) - even though I'm a believer.

I honor all paths; I try to treat my non-believing friends with respect. I hope that they treat believers with respect (I'm a believer, not a Christian).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #121
123. After seeing the poll results recently,
I doubt you'll be finding any newly elected atheists to challenge it with you.

One of us is less likely to win than a communist.

Good to know we've got you on our side, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #123
124. Just want everyone to have equal opportunity.
We're going backwards in the legal arena, however, not forwards.

And, I agree, we are going backwards as to affirmation of diversity as well.

I actually have had more trouble with the members of the Religious Hardright since I self-identified as a Religious Scientist than when I didn't profess a faith/belief-system! Those Religious Wrongies now state that I 'belong to a cult.'

Oh, well!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #124
125. Ha!
Welcome to the Wonderful World of Cults!

We may be going south when we kick the bucket, but we have better perks and our parties are a lot more fun!

Union, dontcha know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #125
126. It really is a suprise to people how many benefits the EAC has
Its not all back helicopters and world domination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #126
128. Shh! Ixnay on the enefitsbay!
Or everyone will want to join.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #125
130. Cool!
Ah, the World is one big three-ring circus!

:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #75
83. Yeah some have been challenged
Of course we also have the problem of not being viable candidates. Polls show that all other things being equal (ie two ideal candidates) people would vote against an open atheist 51% of the time. Simply put we would have to run against Osamma and it would still be a close race.

It is going to be interesting down in Alambama. An atheist lawyer has announced he is running for the Attorney General of the State. Keep an eye on Larry Darby. Although I hope he wins I know what to expect.

There are a lot of cases of simple outright discrimination against atheists in the world politic. Some repeated classic ones occur at the local level. So many board meetings and councels start their sessions with prayers or comments from clergy. Everyonce in a while an atheist gets invited to speak (congrats on those that invite them). The reaction is universal. It is as if the end of the world were nigh. People storm out. Outrage at the very thought is common.

So its not a law that gets challenged very often. No politician is going to risk their carreer to strike them from the books. And its not likely that an open atheist is going to get a chance to test them any time soon either. So they just languish there on the books as a further insult to us. Reminding us that Pappa Bush and others simply don't believe we deserve to be citizens.

So sometimes we get uppity. :woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #83
120. Well, I hope he wins!
There are many laws on the books that are shameful.

Legislators do not want to take the time (and make the effort) to clean them up.

I'm reminded that sodomy laws are still on the books in many states, despite Lawrence v. Texas.

Even worse, Indiana has enacted a 'trigger law' in case Roe v. Wade is ever sufficently weakened or overturned.

It pains me to see this type of discrimination ever; I am sorry my atheist friends have to go through the discrimination.

Right now, I'm planning to vote tomorrow in California to prevent going backwards in the law; they are attempting to weaken privacy rights via Proposition 73.

The battle is never over!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. Really?
You don't like flame wars and yet you started a copycat thread in GD insulting atheists?

Show me where I have ever done anything like that.



And I would avoid using terms like "passive aggressive" if you're not sure what they mean.

Between that and the spelling, grammar and punctuation errors, your posts are barely coherent.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #34
44. Guess you do not like Joyce - or Lord Dexter who put a page of
punctuation Marks at the end of his book and told the reader to use them in any way that made them happy.

You are the person that said "passive aggressive" as to a previous post of mine - and based on the standard definition as I know it, I plead guilty - a bit guilty - not a lot guilty - but a bit guilty.

Given the lack of threads in GD attacking atheists, copycat thread in GD insulting Christian would indeed be hard to find.

Unfortunately, the copycat thread in GD insulting atheists could be done just about every day since there are few days that do not have a few bashing of the religious threads that could be copycatted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #44
55. ?
Is typing those posts as painful as reading them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. Sorry - sometimes I get into it and skip looking at the author. My bad!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EvolveOrConvolve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
57. We shouldn't be indebted to them because they're Christians
They made great contributions in spite of their Christianity, which in many ways acts as an anchor on the ship of progress.

"People like Niebuhr use a Christian ethic for an extremely worldly and complex philosophy of man that is as relevant to politics as anything that comes out of the secular world."

I have a hard time rationalizing anything positive out of the Christian Bible, so Niebuhr's Christian ethic is probably an aberration. There are so many other people who translate Biblical ethics in a different, and far more negative way.

That's not to say that you didn't mention some great people with great minds who did great things. I just have a feeling that these people would have been great no matter which religion they were born into.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. Exactly.
I see you're guilty of "intolerance" as well for not awarding special consideration to christians because of their religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #57
64. If you don't see gestures
toward social justice in the new testament, you clearly have not read it very carefully. Niebuhr is just one of many social gospel and christian realist writers who write about social justice. Again if you do not like it when Christians are dismissive and narrow minded toward you, you will not accomplish anything by acting that way toward them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EvolveOrConvolve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #64
119. Unfortunately, the Christian Bible isn't limited to the New Testament
Admittedly, there are examples of social justice in the New Testament. But, there are other examples of violence, barbarism, and injustice.

Matthew 10:34
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

Luke 12:47-48
47 That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows.
48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.


I could go on and on. The Bible does a pretty good job of defeating itself. The third passage is especially heinous from a social aspect.

I'll reiterate what I said before. There have been great people who did great and noble things, in spite of their Christianity. We are not indebted to them because of their Christianity, we are indebted to them because of the great things they did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
61. Perhaps the Christians who aren't fundies
yet who persist in labeling atheists and telling us what it is we *really* believe, could show just a bit more respect for us? Is that too much to ask?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. And yet somehow you
will solve that by practicing the same discretions toward them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. Turning the other cheek ain't my philosophy.
If I am disrespected, I will forcefully defend myself and my fellow non-believers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. Who is disrespecting you?
I have never seen a christian DUer insult atheists/agnostics. I cannot say the same about the other way around.....

Not to be nasty, but I suppose tolerance would not be something to expect from someone with your user name....OK that was a little nasty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. Gee, here's one from just today:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #66
69. That was in response
to a earlier thread which purported the exact opposite, which proves my point about how nothing is accomplished by disrespecting each other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. You don't say? And yet your op accuses DUers of attacking christians...
And you continue to accuse me and my fellow atheists of attacking believers with nothing to back it up.

I think there is definitely intolerance exhibited in this thread and it isn't coming from the atheists.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #71
78. The thread you brought up
was a result of an anti-christian thread of the same vain. If saying christians are smarter then atheists is not attacking atheists, then how was the earlier post saying atheists are smarter then christians not attacking christians??

Again you're not getting "attacked" by a Christian but by an agnostic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #78
80. Yet your op only singles out the christians being attacked.
And you continue to accuse us of attacking them without proof.

I really don't give a shit what you are in terms of religion, I'm seeing a double standard here and I resent it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. I just gave you proof!!
...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. Of what?
Where did I or my fellow atheists attack christians?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #82
85. In the Atheists have higher IQ's then Christians thread
that proceeded the "anti-atheist" thread you brought up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. Was that posted by an atheist?
Or are you just assuming it was?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #87
89. Was my op posted toward atheists
or are you assuming it was?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #89
90. The op was a rant accusing DUers of attacking christians.
You went on to accuse me and a fellow atheist of attacking christians as well, without any proof.

You assumed the post that started this little "mini-crusade" of yours was posted by an atheist.

You defended christians even though atheists were also attacked.

We're back to you again.

Why the double standard?

And why no comment on the blatant discrimination in this country?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #90
95. I gave you proof 5 times
No more then you assumed the op was attacking atheists

On several of the posts on this thread I said I would denounce any Christian who attacked atheists.

As far discrimination, I am a "fellow non believer", I have never been denied education, housing, or employment for my beliefs. There are injustices perpetrated in the world far greater then what I face for my religious beliefs or lack of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #95
97. You've provided no evidence of atheist attacks on christians on DU.
I have asked repeatedly and other than the ridiculous reply that my sarcastic first post in this thread constituted an attack, you've come up with zilch.

You cited a thread started in GD today where the op never claimed to be an atheist.

Again, what proof do you have showing an attack by atheists on christians?

Your lack of personal experience does not negate the fact that discrimination against atheists exists in this country and is written into the law books in several states.

So again, should atheists suck it up or do we have a right to demand equal consideration?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. I would point out that I know of at least two atheists
responded to that post as a pointless attack. One even alerted on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #98
150. True - and the original poster agreed that it should be alerted on as
it was a copy cat of a post he had alerted on that dumped on Christains.

Indeed that was the point - I thought. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kwassa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #71
109. .
Edited on Mon Nov-07-05 09:51 PM by kwassa


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. Calling people out is not allowed.
Edited on Mon Nov-07-05 07:18 PM by trotsky
And yes, that was rather nasty. My username has nothing to do with the historical Trotsky, otherwise I would have capitalized it.

Nice assumption on your part. Hmm, maybe I have an answer now to your question of who has disrespected me.

By the way, what do you think qualifies something as an "insult" to Christians? Could you provide an example or two?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #67
70. My apologies
It was meant toward the historical Trotsky. There are atheists of goodwill, there are Christians of goodwill, there are no Trotskyites of goodwill.

An example would be the earlier thread about atheists having a higher IQ then Christians, this was obviously meant to be an insult...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. Which was followed up by a thread insulting atheists.
Yet you only tell people to stop the Christian-hating threads.

You apparently never saw the thread in response to the moron who ran over Cindy Sheehan's crosses. One poster said that the person who did it was obviously an atheist. Tell me that's not hateful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #72
74. It is hateful and stupid
and had I seen it, I would have been just as critical. People should stop athiest hating threads too, once again I am an agnostic. Again the anti-christian thread was first and instigated the other thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. Well then, why don't you ask the mods to lock this thread,
and start a new one asking for respect from BOTH sides?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #76
84. From what I see on DU
the animosity is fairly one sided, if I saw Christians attacking atheists I would say the same. I never urged Christians to disrespect atheists, if YOU would like to start a thread asking for respect from both sides, and a christian attacked you, I would most certainly come to your defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #84
86. So based on your limited personal observations,
you decided to start a thread berating non-believers for not showing Christians enough respect. I cannot fathom why that might upset some non-believers who have seen more than their fair share of insults against atheists. Perhaps you should consider that your observations aren't the be-all, end-all judgment of what happens on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BL611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #86
88. Who said my observations were
the end all be all, I can only can only comment on what I observe, if I saw anti atheist posts I would speak on it also. I don't know how you could take the OP as "berating" non believers all it asks is that people respect christians too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #88
96. It berates by judging all
by the post of one. The only example you've been able to give to support your post was one single thread. I'm just saying that there's been plenty of disrespect from the other side, too, and your post clearly implies that it's all against Christians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #63
93. Well said - and understandable! - just replace non-believer with believer
At last we agree on a plan for posting on this board.

But Skinner - not us - makes the rules. So let us not perceive disrespect where none is intended, not go looking for a fight, nor get in the face of those who we simply disagree with.

But to not expect the other side to turn the other cheek when you would not turn the other cheek if in their shoes is indeed a reasonable expectation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #93
94. The problem comes in who perceives what as an insult.
Insisting that atheism is a religion, or takes faith, is something I find highly insulting and disrespectful. You, and some others, continue to harp on that concept with no regard whatsoever for the atheists who are telling you otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #94
100. to find an opinion "highly insulting" lacks logic, in my opinion - but if
it justifies your activity to you, have at it.

That you find "highly insulting" what appears to me to be simple logic is not going to make me abandon the use of logic, nor my expressing of logical statements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. Well, there we are.
So much for respect. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #101
102. Respect does not include some things you seem to believe it does
but then I am using "old fashioned English" that does not equate atheism with being an agnostic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. Well if merely stating one's opinion based on a definition is fine,
then what is wrong with calling Christianity a myth or a fairy tale?

myth: A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society

fairy tale: A fanciful tale of legendary deeds and creatures

Doing so is specifically against the DU rules, yet is no different than what you insist you're doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #103
113. Sorry Myth works academically while fairy tale is a put down of religion
Indeed we have had many discussions on myths around the world on DU.

Indeed "history" beyond archeology is just the changing agreed to myth because we can never "prove" anything to 100% belief in all folks then alive and who will be alive later. Setting the level of proof required for "history" is a fun task! At least IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #113
115. But what if "fairy tale" is my opinion?
Based on the strict definition, if you don't accept that Christianity is true, then it could be called a fairy tale. Again, in that case, it's just an opinion, and no different than what you are saying about calling atheism a religion. An opinion that happens to offend some people.

Please distinguish what exactly is different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #115
127. "fairy tale" carries the "cock-and-bull" story that can not be true
and which is known by its audience to be untrue and impossible connotation. Moral teaching is not necessarily inherent in the stories as they are understood to be fiction crafted for entertainment purposes. Peasants, abandoned children, and simpletons attain wealth and happy marriages as often through sheer luck and the fortuitous intervention of magic as through cleverness or good actions - events do not happen through the action of God.

The key is that "fairy tale" is a "derogatory" phrase, demeaning a tale (or anything else) as childish fantasy, not to be taken seriously, fit ONLY for children.

Now to call something a religion is not "derogatory" - especially when it exhibits the belief requirement of a religion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #127
133. That is merely your opinion.
A fairy tale is a fictional, fanciful tale. I believe the bible is fictional, and it clearly contains many fanciful stories.

You find "fairy tale" offensive.

I find "atheism is a religion" offensive.

I have not called Christianity a "fairy tale" on DU.

You persist in calling atheism a religion. I, and many other atheists, find that to be derogatory.

Respect should be a two-way street, should it not?

When can I expect to see you start showing some?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #133
134. You have got to be kidding ! - "Just my opinion" wins the debate eh?
OK - whatever - :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #134
135. Didn't think we were debating here.
But that was your original response when confronted with your words being found disrespectful by atheists. "Just my opinion" was a good enough answer for you then.

When do we get the respect, papau?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #135
136. respect equals agreeing with your definition of English words? n/t
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #136
137. You know very well what respect means.
And continuing to use a phrase to describe a group, despite that group's protests of it being inappropriate, is showing a lack of respect.

No one here calls Christianity a fairy tale.

When will you be showing respect in return, papau?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #137
138. When will you admit you get respect - from me, from DU - and that
what you are demanding is that folks agree that the "have cake and eat it too" concept of agnostic-atheism?

Is it not better to let your religious doctrine be your belief - and to not try to force others to agree with it?

I do not agree that atheism is possible without faith and belief in "no God" because you can not prove "no God". I believe faith and belief are the outward signs of religion - and the lack of codified dogma does not make atheism any less a religion.

I do not agree with agnostic-atheism as a possible logical construct.

But I respect those that choose to hold that view or belief.

Perhaps now we can get back to political posts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #138
139. I'm sorry you feel that way, papau.
I look forward to the day when you can give others the respect that you demand for yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #138
140. Ow ow ow ow
Stop torturing the logic so much. It's making me wince. This is what we are talking about when we say you are attacking us. We feel as strongly about this as you do claiming that our refering to your beliefs as fairy tails is wrong. Please stop it.

Ok, let go through it. Doctrine? What doctrine? Atheists don't have a doctrine. Each of us believe a bunch of things. We are each atheists for our own reasons.

I agree. I cannot prove no god. But I also do not believe in any god. Further more there are a lot of gods I can refute. I have no faith in this matter as it is not something I think I am supposed to believe. It is just a recognition of my current position on the matter. It is not something I try to adhere to.

Because I have no faith or active belief in "No god" I am in no way involved in anything remotely like an atheistic religion. And besides that individual beliefs or lack of beliefs do not constitute a religion. A religion is specifically the active gathering together of individuals who share and promote a specific group of ideas with ardor and passion. You don't get to call a group of people a religion just because they happen to be walking down the street together.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #140
141. I do not buy the "torturing the logic " - but it does not matter in that
I do not care what you believe - or don't believe - or are not required to believe.

I see atheists having faith and belief in what can not be proved - and based on what I see I would agree that atheism has little doctrine or dogma - beyond swearing to no god to date, afirming that people either do not need to think about creation or should have faith that "Science" will explain all in good time, and the claim that agnostic equals atheism whenever an atheist needs them to be equal.

Perhaps your "It is just a recognition of my current position on the matter. It is not something I try to adhere to." works for you - but it does not sound much different from saying I am a believer, but I am open to being proven wrong. Where one can not "prove" a damn thing either way, that is bad logic - IMHO -

but whatever floats your boat.

You say "And besides that individual beliefs or lack of beliefs do not constitute a religion. A religion is specifically the active gathering together of individuals who share and promote a specific group of ideas with ardor and passion. You don't get to call a group of people a religion just because they happen to be walking down the street together." - but I would say acceptance of a belief - or belief system - that guides your life but can not be proven - is to be religious - or at least a person of faith.

but again whatever floats your boat ...

NOW can we get back to politics?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #141
142. We can get back to politics
when you grant us the same respect you demand for yourself.

Why is this so difficult for you to do? Atheists are telling you that we don't have "faith," even as you define it. We don't have "belief," even as you define it. We have the perspective of being atheists and knowing what we think. You do not. Will this destroy your faith, if you allow the possibility that atheists have no faith at all?

Why, papau, do you simply refuse to grant us the respect we wish?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #141
143. There is no fighting in the war room
You are more than welcome to return to politics. We happen to be discussing matters of religion and theology here. Not sure what you are doing here if politics is your desired topic.

You really don't seem to understand how you are just plain being rude and dismissive do you? Let us be very clear and very very specific.

You do not get to define what I am thinking. You do not experience my thoughts. I do not adhere to any doctrine. I do not follow the teachings of any particular atheist. My ideas of what is true about the universe are mine alone. They are not derived from any dogma espoused by any particular group.

I do not swear that there is no god. I simply do not believe in god(s). Please stop insisting otherwise. You do not get to speak for me. Any attempt to do so will be construed as being rude. You would not like it if I insisted that you believe in a blood thirsty god that kills babies for kicks.

I do not claim to be able to prove there are no gods. There are gods that I can provide refutation for. But the open statement there are no gods is illogical and not one I am making. I do not believe in gods. I do not believe there are any gods. This is just a statement of the simple fact that at this moment in time I do not happen to have any beliefs in gods. Tomorrow I may find some cause or reason to believe in gods. It is not a statement of rejection. It is not a statement of faith. It is not a statement of commitment to any particular position. It is just and always has been a statement of what my current state of belief is or is not. I do not currently believe in any god.

A belief system would well rise to the state of religion. But atheism is not a system. It is just recognition of a condition. That is it. It has no moral components. It has no rites. It has no practices. It is just a person that does not believe in god(s). Thats it. No more. No less. Period end of story done deal closed book. It is not a system. It is not a religion.

If a group of atheists got together and formed a set of ideas about how to live their life and incorporated their atheism as a cornerstone of that SYSTEM that particular group could be construed as a religion in a broad sense. But just knowing that a person is an atheist in no way shape or form connects them to that or any other group. Atheism is not a system.

There is no faith required to be an atheist. At least in regards to the question of god. Every other aspect of their life may be open and pliable to a condition of faith. But not believing in something does not require faith. You do not require faith to not believe in smurfs and I do not require faith to not believe in gods. It's just something you do not happen to believe in. There are countless ideas in this world you do not believe in. And none of them require faith to maintain your lack of belief.

So please stop with the insults and if you so wish to return to political discussion you will find that we are more than ready to do so as well. But continued slurs directed towards us will be met with reactions such as this. If you do not want us to continue with this dance you need only stop insulting us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #143
145. Back to politics :-) - but for the record you are wrong in my opinion
Edited on Tue Nov-08-05 11:14 AM by papau
Like you say - I am not sure why atheists feel a need to discuss matters of religion and theology here, when they profess not to grant them a role in controlling/guiding their conduct.

Bur whatever floats your boat.

Rude and dismissive is how I would describe atheist posts in Theology and Religion - they are all of the form "I am correct - can I help you learn why I am correct" - Really not sure why atheists do not see that they are Rude and dismissive.

Every man his own preacher is defined by "You do not get to define what I am thinking. You do not experience my thoughts. I do not adhere to any doctrine. I do not follow the teachings of any particular atheist. My ideas of what is true about the universe are mine alone. They are not derived from any dogma espoused by any particular group." and are common among non-Catholics. So what is the big deal - why do you feel the need to "evangelize - in the sense of militant or crusading zeal" - do you proselytize because atheism needs new converts?

Thanks for listing what you think you believe/think, whatever. Just as you get freedom to do the believing/thinking, I get the freedom to use non-derogatory terms - and faith and belief are not not derogatory the way "fairy Tale" is - at least as per the dictionary - to describe to myself and others what I believe I am seeing.

If faith and believe are swear words to atheists, perhaps posting in religion and theology is a bad idea for atheists.

What Gods can you provide refutation for? You say this often - but when pressed it comes down to neither of us believe in such and such - and not that either of us has provided refutation of anything.

The tomorrow line - the future is not ours to see - as the line from throw Momma from the the train points out - does not change were you are today and indeed means nothing relative to todays beliefs, or non-beliefs - or do not have to believe beliefs.

You do not currently believe in any god - I think you have got that factoid across -we have all understood your statement. And I respect you as a person while disagreeing that your "do not currently believe in any god" is the correct mind set for anyone else or for yourself.

The rule you propose for a "belief system 'rising' to a state of religion" - namely that there be a 'system' with 'moral components', before one gets to call it a religion is interesting. In my own world of English I tend use person of faith and belief to describe the atheist - and to not call them religious. But in the religion and theology forum that word does come out. Perhaps we could agree to ban "atheist are religious" and "believers are in to fairy tales", but to leave faith and belief as working words for this forum, to be used as long as the poster does not intend to be derogatory.


Professing a non-belief in one explanation of creation while refusing to suggest an alternative beyond faith in Science to explain it in the future, or to claim to being open to a God belief in the future, is faith and belief in no God as you leave creation an open question. Negation is not a complete answer. Perhaps your God is the "Scientific method and logic" - but only as defined by members of your faith?

Pretending that because I do not believe in smurfs makes my answer to creation as incomplete as the atheist non-answer is silly. I may be wrong - but the atheist is avoiding the question they can not answer.

So I will continue to describe what I see as atheist belief with the word belief.

And if calling that a slur makes you feel OK with dumping on persons of belief - well there we are, aren't we?

If this dance continues it will be because someone other than myself feels a need to do "evangelize" and "proselytize". I am secure in my belief - it appears the atheist is not secure in their non-belief and must demand others agree with him. Interesting.

By the way, claiming to be insulted is used by the GOP in politics - and by the Dems. It works because folks do not think about the situation. Claiming to be insulted does not work with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #145
146. Ever presumptive
Edited on Tue Nov-08-05 11:58 AM by Az
Why do atheists discuss matters of religion? Because it affects us. We do not walk through this world unaffected by those around us. And as they affect us we come to understand that we can affect them. But to what end.

The efforts here of the atheists has not been to convert or refute any particular beliefs. Our sole argument has been to demand respect and acceptance in our society and more specifically in the Democratic party. Trust me if we were here to convert believers the dialog would be drastically different.

As to how we carry ourselves here in this forum I cannot speak for my fellows but I attempt to carry myself with respect for believers and expect that the same is returned to me. I advise this as an ideal method for all, believers and nonbelievers alike. But I cannot force this on anyone.

Your insistance that we or I specifically am trying to convert you is quite unfounded. I have not even made any serious attempts to determine what it is you believe. That is your own private concern and I have neither the right nor have I been invited to partake in debating your particular beliefs. It is my code of conduct that I do not engage in direct religious debate unless attacked or invited. And while I do see many of your positions as attacks I do not see them as invitations to debate your beliefs. So you are quite safe from such a confrontation from me.

You seem to be wanting to special rights to demand that we cannot express our beliefs in ways that you construe as deragatory but we must comply with your wishes. Many atheists do consider theistic beliefs to be delusions and fairy tales. This is not my position but there are those that believe it. You insist on being allowed to press us into the mold of faith holders and religious individuals despite our objections to these terms. This is hypocritical of you and is offensive to us. Again I will ask that you desist.

I used the word system because you were the one that introduced it to the conversation. I mentioned moral components of religion as merely one of many aspects that can be part of a religious system. It is not any particular belief, activity, or rite that makes a religion. It is the deliberate and conscious act of a group of individuals coming together for the specific purpose of adoration of ideas, principles, rites or any number of factors. It is the act of gathering and specific level of adoration that gives rise to something being within the pervue of a religion. A group of people that happen to have a similar stance on a subject is most decidedly not a religion. If however they were to gather together and promote and share in their joy of such a thing they may rise to be a religion.

You do not know anything about what I profess to understand about the universe. The only piece of information you have at this moment is that I am an atheist. I could believe that the world is full of spirits and ghosts and that leprachauns frolic in the hills. You have not asked me about anything and only presumed what I believe about the nature of the universe from the label atheist. This is presumptive, dismissive, and prejudicial. And exactly the point we have been trying to make. You cannot know what we believe from just the term atheist other than the fact that we do not posess a belief in god(s).

The atheist is not avoiding any question. They honestly answer the question given. Do you believe in god? No. That is a direct and honest answer. If you want to know what they believe about the nature of the universe beyond that you will have to ask them yourself.

So you will continue to call us whatever you want. And you will continue to complain when we call you anything you object to. Yes, that sounds typical. We are used to it. Do not expect us to stay quiet about it though.

I do not dump on other people. I find it to be a waste of time. Worse actually. It not only wastes your time but it results in a useless spiral of emotionally heated words that gain nothing but anxiety and anger. Beyond pointless.

Demanding respect and acceptance in society is not evangelyzing. The very notion that you see our activities in this light shows your bias. Frankly I find it quite distasteful. We are fighting for our right to be fully vested citizens in this society and you dismiss our attempts as petty evangelyzing. Sorry, I am not going back in that closet because the mere site of atheists offends you. It is your problem not mine.

As ever you continue to allow your biases speak loudly. You continue to apply your bigoted notions of who or what we are and claim that our attempts to demand respect are attempts to convert all the poor oppressed believers. And then you even dismiss our right to stand up and point at our oppressors by claiming you do buy into it. That pretty much is the stance of a bigot. Standing there with their fingers in their ears and chanting "lalalalalalal I can't hear you!" Yes, we get it. You can't hear us. Doesn't mean we are going away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #146
148. Very well written AZ - and if it was just you and I it might be an
interesting conversation as we discuss if it is even possible to split off the the God question from the question of creation - something I do not believe possible, but which you seem to believe is possible.

But unfortunately there are many members of the atheist group who like to post as described in my previous post.

Then when I respond in kind, I get folks like yourself saying my tone was not justified for any posting to you.

And you are correct.

I do not know the solution. But as with any minority "Doesn't mean we are going away" is a great line that I endorse.

Based on logic and what I see I will never stop believing that atheism is a belief - a faith. But that does not mean I need to keep throwing it out there.

But do not expect to watch others throw out dump on believers postings, and then not see me respond in kind. Your thought that it is unproductive to respond in kind is of course true - but then posting anything on DU might be seen as "unproductive".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #145
147. "perhaps posting in religion and theology is a bad idea for atheists"
I'm not going anywhere, papau.

You had a chance to display the modicum of respect that we're simply asking for. You not only refused, but threw in a bunch of snarky comments and insults.

Rest assured, I will continue to defend myself against you and your unfounded and unwanted opinions about atheists.

You could have ended this. It could have been amicable and respectful. Instead, you dug in your heels and lobbed a few more mudballs.

Pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #147
149. Trotsky - I would miss you if you went away! And as I aged I have
learned to never expect others to change.

My opinions appear to be indeed "unwanted", but I suspect others might agree with me that they are not unfounded (which does not make my opinions "correct" or "the sole truth in matters of GOD or NO-GOD").

"I could have ended this" - LOL - excellent.

Have a great day.

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #149
152. Just as others might agree with me
if I were to say that Christianity is a myth and the bible a book of fairy tales.

But just because others might agree doesn't make something less disrespectful.

I suspect that if were you using words that homosexuals, non-whites, or even members of other religions told you they found offensive, you (being a decent liberal) would stop. Why won't you do the same with atheists? How are we different?

And unlike you, I have learned that people can indeed change, and grow, and learn to respect others. To me, that's an integral part of being a liberal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #152
153. Belief systems rarely change - biases can be changed - there is no way I
would try to change your atheist belief system.

You will find "words used" in general to be "in kind" relative to the thread/post I am responding to.

AZ says that is unproductive - and he is correct.

But I read school yard bully in many of the atheist postings, and the only way to respond to the school yard bully is to confront them.

As I already respect atheists (and indeed have a few in the family) I doubt that is a problem. But then the atheists in the family are not in your face trying to tell you how wrong you are.

Indeed we agree to disagree, if you will.

I do not call the in your face you are wrong threads posted by atheists in the Religion forum in any way a "discussion" or a change, and grow, and learn to respect others moment. They are bullying - nothing more.

Now if an atheist wants to join a discussion on the books of any religion that would be fun. Indeed an outside look at the arguments of the past 5000 years on God would be fun.

But that is not the point of the atheist postings, in general. It appears to me to be strictly in your face, respect us by admitting we are correct.

And beginning with the idea of agnostic being compatible with atheist, I disagree.

So I guess I do not "respect" - as in agree with - your beliefs,

However I do respect you as an individual who has a right to their own opinion about anything.

If you need more "respect" than that, I am afraid you will have to look to someone else rather than me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #153
154. I guess we disagree on who's the bully.
Besides, this is not about who's being "in your face." I'm not doing that right now, am I?

I am simply asking you to refrain from using certain words that several atheists have asked you to stop using. You don't have to play the "tough guy" right now, you don't have to worry about saving face and not "giving in" to the atheists. Just accept that we deserve respect, too.

But even if you cannot (and I have every reason to believe you won't), we may have reached a breakthrough.

If, as you say, it is difficult to change belief systems, then I can accept that the idea "atheism is a belief system" is merely part of YOUR belief system, nothing more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #154
155. Excellent approach! :-)
:-)

:toast:

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #153
156. Let's slow things down.
I suspect there is a lot of ego on the line. To correct this let us try to deal with singular issues at a time and try to eradicate any miscommunications.

Is it your contention that we or any other atheists posting here have been actively trying to convert you or any other believer in the matter of what you actually believe. Are you saying that we have been trying to refute god?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #133
144. The Answer To Your Last Question Is Simple...
... "never."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #102
105. "old fashioned English" ?
I doubt that, considering the term agnostic is a new one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #105
116. I dare say Chaucer did not use the word - indeed 1889 and Thomas Huxley
would be the first use.

But that does seem like long enough for the definition to settle down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #116
118. Irony
The mere fact that we are contesting it should suggest that the jury is still out on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opiate69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #100
110. "to find an opinion "highly insulting" lacks logic"
Really??? So, if I were to proclaim that I am of the opinion that you are a pseudo-intellectual, obnoxious, self-righteous blowhard, that wouldn't be insulting because it is merely my "opinion"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #110
112. Ok, who sent for back up?
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #110
114. Nope - insulting and not informative and an often used way to concede
defeat in a debate -

but not insulting.

You can do better :-)

But I like the equating of the dictionary meaning of a word to the personality of a poster - perhaps you can't do better?

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opiate69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-05 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #114
117. Make up my mind..
insulting or not?

"Nope - insulting and not informative and an often used way to concede defeat in a debate -

but not insulting."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-08-05 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
157. Locking
Predictably, this call for leaving Christians alone has devolved into a Christo-atheist flame war. Pity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 08:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC