Liberals, Leftists and Progressives: Respecting those of Faith

I think this should be said, and yes I realize it has been said many times before. We liberals, leftists and progressives need to be more respectful of those within our own ranks who hold to some type of faith. I've seen it posted other times by those of faith, but I am speaking from an agnostic/atheist point of view.

Not all people of faith are bad people. Yes, I realize it is easy to take out our frustrations on those who claim to hold the same faith as our enemies - and that's what they are our enemies - but we have to realize that they hold the same faith in name only. They agree with us on almost everything, and it is foolish to alienate them especially considering that the majority of people in the United States profess to be of some type of religious belief, mostly Christianity.

We are supposed to know better, us on the left, and yes I am as guilty as hell of it sometimes as well. It's easy to take a pot shot at them, or mock them for something they believe - something they take seriously - and I have no doubt that it hurts them deeply. We of all people should know better.

One of the biggest problems we have in America right now is that faith is being monopolized by the Religious Right, and yet we fail to see the treasure that is the Religious Left - people that want to do (and often are doing) good with their faith rather than evil. I notice now and then Religious Leaders on the left standing up against those on the right and it is my belief that those of us - regardless of whether we believe or not - should lift them up as pillars among their religious communities. We need to give them a voice and help them spread their message. We need to provide the much needed balance against the Right's monopolization of faith.

It doesn't help that every time a liberal of faith stands up that before the right even has a chance to shoot them down we do it for them. Instead we need to offer our support and encourage such people and their groups to continue. We need to help them flourish because ultimately we are all fighting the same battle even if we don't necessarily agree on everything.

I highly suggest that every time we take note of a religious person on the left doing something good, especially if it undermines the fundamentalists that we should all try to offer our support and help them get out their message so others can join them.

Oh, and I am not saying we do not hold the right to criticize those of faith. We most certainly do. I hate the Pope with a passion and believe we should do our best to point out (although respectfully if possible - more for the sake of innocent Catholics than for him) how the man is evil made flesh. (No offence to Catholics, of course, as I know he's your guy - and that he also doesn't really represent how you feel. Thankfully.)

:puke:

There are a number of fine religious progressives on DU alone next to whom I'm happy to stand. Lydia Leftcoast, IrateCitizen, SOteric, many others.

The wingnuts are your enemy, not these folks.

... "help them flourish"...

Gimme a break. Should we mash up some banana in a dish and spoon-feed it to them, too?

In any event, I'm not counting on religion's help, personally. This constant mewling about gawd and faith and baby jeebus is the problem, not the solution. Can't people take a stand for what's right without dragging sky-guy into it? If not, they don't seem like reliable allies to me.

You're putting a lot of words into this agnostic's mouth.

Can't people take a stand for what's right without dragging sky-guy into it? If not, they don't seem like reliable allies to me.


The people I mentioned don't "drag sky-guy into it" - the only reason I know that they're people of faith is because they've responded in the past to attacks on people of faith.

At any rate, maybe you have a lot more allies than I do here in Georgia.

:shrug:

Just a guess.

Hey, y'all go to town. If you need any broader brushes, the DLC might be able to help out.

I ask a rhetorical question describing how I'd like to see people motivate themselves, and you take that as an attempt to define you?

And now you come back with something about a "broad brush" and "the DLC"?

WTF? :shrug:

Are you using some kind of random bickering phrase generator here?

Give it a rest.

You're too wrapped up in your damned victim identity to see a friend when they're standing in front of you. Have fun - I don't have the time for it.

You toss out that talking point and storm off in a little huff?

You go spoiling for a fight by inserting a series of generic, fill-in-the-blank "I'm offended by________" posts... you personalize simple statements apparently as an excuse get all miffed... you project your own shortcomings onto me -- then you feel misunderstood?

Unreal. Seriously unfuckingreal. :crazy:

You evidently have your own issues to work out, and it doesn't seem like my fight. I'm not offended by anything you've written, just trying to point out a few truths as I've found them. You're, of course, welcome to take or leave them as you will.

And more than a tad patronizing.

But if it makes you feel all snuggly and safe to dismiss me as simply "having issues to work out," go for it.

I'm accused of being patronizing by a poster with the Flying Spaghetti Monster in his sig? Please. :D

Want to know the sad part? Theologically, you and I are probably closer than I am with the posters I mentioned earlier. I simply would like to see them treated with respect, as progressives of faith who aren't trying to force their religion down your throat or mine.

No, it doesn't make me feel all snuggly and safe. It depresses me. But you be you.

... and of my gender.

What a terrible example to set for "people of faith."

Didn't realize you were female, or that you were so easily bruised.

How am I being disrespectful of your beliefs?

... apologists just naturally seep into conversation.

And why do you feel the need to denigrate FSM, by noting your negative reaction to seeing it in a sig line? Isn't that just the sort of behavior you are arguing against?

How does one go about denigrating a spoof? :D

The point remains.

... might also be considered a compelling social and political statement. A ready means of communicating important ideas about the best interests of our society, and perhaps our species as a whole.

Unless, of course, one feels threatened by it, as I suppose some people might. After all, it does argue for the replacement of their religious paradigm with one based on reason.

I haven't been in the "in crowd" regarding the importance of the FSM. On the other hand, it seems to me as if you're pissing all over a means of communicating important ideas right now.

The one where people post their views, even at the risk of being in disagreement?

Or the one in which the voices of the minority* are silenced in acquiescence to the majority**?


*nonbelievers

** christians christians christians

which is, of course, the source of all discrimination against non-believers.

Honestly, the fact that nonbelievers are even allowed to post here is an affront to god-fearing people everywhere, isn't it?

Just another sign of the incredible power atheists wield, to the detriment of the downtrodden religious.

and the baby is awake, so have fun.

See ya.

We have a 2 1/2 month old.

Sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to say that. :)

Treasure them.. "lift them up as pillars"... "give them a voice"...

Those were from the OP, and you were speaking with Ulyses who was one of the first to reply to OP, so maybe there is some confusion with those exact words being implied as attributed to Ulyses.

and reaction to it, my use of the word "coddling" to describe my impression of the OP.

When Ulyses just put ? in his subject, I could see confusion at that point.

Sometimes it's hard to know what part of a post the people who reply are specifically supporting.

This may sound awful, but I've jumped in on a general subject without reading the full post myself. That's how I recognized the possibility of confusion. Aw well, live and learn.

Yes, it may seem wonky to us, but we can't forget - those people actually BELIEVE it. Think about it. If you believe something so deeply, something close to your heart, are you more likely to be agreeable to the guy who just pissed all over it or to the guy who just smiled and nodded?

It's not like religion is going away. There is always going to be a segment of the population out there hungering for it. It's not like we can stomp it out, and if we could have we would have been able to do it by now.

You should know as well as I do that trying to argue with these people using facts doesn't work. I'm sure you've tried it just as I have, so instead of trying to convert them - why not instead help them become the mainstream version of Religion in America?

What would you rather have Fred Phelps or a liberal Pastor? I'd take the liberal Pastor any day of the week.

Also, if it amuses you… if we help them then you get to watch Christians on the Right battle Christians on the Left, and seeing as how they'd spend so much time battling each other they won't have the time or the money to mess with anything else.

We don't have anything to lose and everything to gain.

Too many seem to expect a chorus of "amens." And it only gets worse if ones happens to mention even the slightest antipathy toward the god stuff. That's tantamount to persecuting them, dontchaknow?

I do, in fact, hope that religion goes away someday. I do think resisting it is worthwhile, and that includes voicing my opinion that it's far better to feed the children because they're hungry, rather than because god-said-so.

Yeah, there's a time for expediency. Many if not most in the GLBT community bit their tongues during the 2004 campaign for just that reason, even as Kerry announced his willingness to treat gays and lesbians as second-class citizens.

But to extend that sentiment, the self-censorship, to a general moratorium on rejecting religionism -- even on a discussion board in cyberspace -- is asking too much, it seems to me.

I want the Religious Left to go to battle with the Religious Right. Why? Simple. I'd rather have them treat me like a bitch than the Religious Right. It's like comparing a Jew living in America before World War II to living in Nazi Germany.

Sure, I may be segregated and go around seeing signs saying: "No Dogs, No Colors, No Jews, No Fags" but at least I wouldn't be sitting in a Concentration Camp. Besides, not all of the Religious Left is anti-gay and I also have to remember that many LGBT people are religious to some extent as well.

Yes, I'd love to see a world where there is no religion - people don't want it nor do they need it. I'm just not naive to think it's going to happen in my life time, or even many generations after I am dead. Maybe one day, but it won't be anytime soon and most certainly not in the foreseeable future.

Sure it may be slowly rotting, but the snake still has enough fight in it to poison and kill us if it wanted to. I am not saying we shouldn't challenge them in a civil debate if it comes up, there is a difference between agreeing with and respecting someone.

After all, does it really matter if they feed the children because some invisible guy said so or because they were hungry? The point is the children are being fed. Mission Accomplished - if the invisible man serves to make them work even harder and faster all the better.

Believe me, not long after the signs go up, the trains to the camps start rolling.

Do you really think appeasing these people is going to save your skin?

:wow:

If the Religious Left gets a voice then the Religious Right will jump all over them like a rabid dog. They'll end up spending so much time and money arguing with each other over tiny details that they won't have the resources to mount their strong offences.

By the time the dust settles it'll be too late. That is what I am counting on. Both secular humanism and science will push forward at lightning speed with a weakened and pre-occupied opposition.

Finally, when or if it ever ends they may find some semblance of balance, or (with any luck) become completely irrelevant all together.

...that anti-religion folks would be a tad more agreeable and be able to read between the lines.

What did you think: "One of the biggest problems we have in America right now is that faith is being monopolized by the Religious Right, and yet we fail to see the treasure that is the Religious Left..." meant?

It didn't make what I said untrue, I just wasn't completely blunt about it. The Religious Left and the Secular Left have things in common and it is in our best interest to exploit those things to the fullest of our ability. The Religious Left wants a voice, we can help them get a voice, our goals are mostly the same - it's not like they are shafted.

Like I said. Does it matter if they feed the hungry children because the invisible guy said so, or because the children are hungry? In the end the children are eating and the goal was accomplished.

After all I didn't say we had to actually respect them, only show respect. There is a difference, like I said, it's called being diplomatic.

For some zany reason, I thought it meant what it said.

See ya.

"After all I didn't say we had to actually respect them, only show respect. There is a difference, like I said, it's called being diplomatic."

I guess respect at some levels needs to be earned, but most diplomats do see the people in front of them as people deserving of basic respect simply because they are people.

Now I see why some Christians get so bent out of shape during these dialogues. If you don't have to actually respect us because we are somehow "inferior" due to our belief in a higher power, but due to your "superior intellect and abilities" manage to behave in a respectful manner, then I guess we should feel grateful somehow. Wow.

It must be getting late and somehow I've misread this. I don't know.

..."I hate the Pope with a passion and believe we should do our best to point out ... how the man is evil made flesh" was a dead give-away.

If the conservative "religious right" ever does that I will more than likely be there as well since I'm for gay rights and a liberal Christian. Compared to other Christians I know whether online or in real life I'm very very very far left so hey they'd lock me up too.

Like it or not, we may not agree on everything, but we certainly have the same enemy. Once they're done with gays they'll most certainly turn their eyes to "purifying the faith", that means anyone who disagrees with them.

Both sides have lots to benefit from the arrangement and there is no reason, aside from semantics and past grievances to not work together. Certainly, both sides can burry the hatchet for the next 20 years or so? I am more than willing to reach across the table. We have many goals in common that we can work together on and there is no reason we shouldn't.

is my faith doesn't matter. We're all equal in the eyes of the law and that's how it should be. I shouldn't be more favorable just because of my race, sexuality or religious beliefs. What if in ten years Buddism (hey it just was a thought) was the popular belief system? I'm sure the fundies wouldn't like that one very much.

I believe in a strict interpretation of the first amendment. Hell I wouldn't even silence the KKK or Fred Phelps - they have the right to preach their hate. I just hope they die horribly while doing it, and of course, I am fully within my first amendment rights to do just that.

...and this is exactly why we should work together. Both of us have a common enemy (the Religious Right) and both of us share a good deal many of the same political views. There is no reason (no one still has stated a good reason other than they don't like the other side) to NOT work together. We both will lose so much if we don't and if we do we both stand to gain everything we want.

I wish other people would do that. *sigh*

in this frightful world without HOPE?? I am a VERY LIBERAL Christian, and at my age when I could be facing my "maker" any day, how does anyone live without the hope of seeing those who have gone before us once again? If I thought there was not the promise of a chance of this, I would take myself out of this dreadful world that has become so full of hate and bitterness. Do you honestly believe that "this is all there is"?? If so, I pity you, but please don't belittle me, and those like me who have faith, just because you think that death ends it all!! I'm looking forward to the day when I will see my husband again, and my Mom and Dad and my two infant children that I lost, and most of all my Dear Lord , who I hope will tell me " well done thy good and faithful servant" Whether you believe in Karma, or reincarnation or whatever, I respect your belief or lack thereof, but please, allow me mine.

Simply put, I go on believing that I can make the world a better place than I came into it as. I believe that is the duty of everyone who is born, to make it better for the generation afterward.

I know that even when I die I will leave some type of legacy behind even if no one in one hundred years, or maybe even twenty five years after my death will remember it. I know that by my very existence I have in some small way altered the world, and it is my hope that I have altered it for the better.

I don't do that out of a believe or hope for some eternal reward. I do that simply because I believe it is the right thing to do, and because that is what I want to do.

I do not know what will happen when I die, and I'll figure that out when it happens. However, I believe that most likely nothing will happen and I will simply cease to exist, and the only thing I know for certain is those that hold the answer ain't talkin'. Heh.

If I thought I would meet people again in some new life, then I might be tempted at some stage to say "I've had enough of this stage - I'd like to move on to whatever happens next". But if I think there is nothing after this, then that would be pointless. Most of us still have good reasons to stay alive, and good reasons to work to make this life better; and thinking there won't be any second course makes it all the more important to make the most of this one.

Then you need to leave this country. Anybody who'd prefer to have their Constitutional, human and civil rights taken away by a religious entity they consider more in their corner than another, and less antithetical to us all, does not deserve even the scant scraps either of those groups would grant.

Respecting the human rights of everybody is a necessary condition for being called "leftist" in North American politics. If a religious person is anti-gay, they are not a member of the religious left.

If somebody tells me "I'm a liberal Christian," who am I to say, "No, you're not?"

Yet I can't count the number of self-professed "liberal" Christians who wax practically poetic about their Christ-centered love and acceptance of everyone... until I pop my head out of my burrow and take the bait.

And then they suddenly amend their all-encompassing worldview to mean, "Well, I can't possibly support the gay lifestyle..."

And then I get the tired old schtick (or some form of it) about loving the sinner and hating the sin. If I'm very, very lucky that day, they won't incite me to sheer rage by offering to pray for me to be "delivered" from my "sin."

So, no, Telly. I'd really love to agree with you (I usually do, even if I'm not posting; I like your insights), but I can't possibly agree that "None of the religious left is anti-gay."

Many of the (self-professed) religious left is most definitely anti-gay, and not very good at hiding it.

I wish you were right. Really I do.

Oh, have you ever heard the line: "I love you just like all the other sinners in the world, the rapists, the child molesters and the murderers."

Arrrgh. That makes me so mad. It just makes me want to take their stupid book and shove it straight up their ass.

And my reaction's the same as yours.

I just got another dose of that here only yesterday. (I wasn't lumped in with rapists, etc., but saying what I was compared to would come too close to calling out another DUer.)

More often than not, we get lumped in with pro-choicers. And adulterers. And anyone else who would automatically be stoned to death under Levitical law.

Now, I happen to be pro-choice -- but realistically, what in the world makes anyone think Roe v. Wade has any direct affect on the vast majority of LGBTs? Or automatically assume we're all entrenched in one another's camp?

It's my belief that those of us allied with pro-choicers do so only because we believe in fighting for all choice. But the not-so-thinly veiled implication is that we're "murderers" in the RW's eyes ("too").

Hmmm... Imagine: I'm pro-choice because I support a woman's right to govern her own body, even though morally (for lack of a better word) I am 100% against the idea of abortion itself. I can't judge what's right or wrong for anyone else. It's not my place. But it is my place to stand up -- publicly -- for every other person's right to manage her/his life in any way s/he sees fit.

If only anti-gay "liberal" Christians would do the same for us.

I don't have any religious reason to say it's wrong for me personally (although being a guy and a gay one at that its not like I ever have to worry about it), I do not believe I have the right to inflict that view on others. Nor do I have the right to judge others who made the choice to have one - they have to live with the choice not me. I just know my conscience would eat me alive.

I am firmly pro-choice on abortion, although I do believe a woman should at least inform the father that she is pregnant before just deciding to terminate. As a guy, I'd most certainly be upset if a woman terminated our child. It wasn't like she made it by herself after all. I don't have a clue how it should be handled if a woman wanted to terminate and a guy didn't though. In a perfect society they'd work something out and they'll both be happy with the agreement.

Anyway, yeah... I don't so much mind getting lumped in with pro-choicers. I am after all pro-choice, it's the fact that they actually lump me with child molesters, rapists and murderers that bothers me. Also it isn't so much as being grouped with them as the fact that they try and come at you with a position of "we love you"... they come at you with such a condescending attitude. That's what pisses me off about it. I've been grouped with far worse, I suppose, and certainly called much worse.

"I love you just like all the other sinners in the world, the rapists, the child molesters and the murderers."


I'm really sorry.

You know, though, with their head in the position it must be for them to come to that conclusion, I don't think the book would fit anyway.

So, it's probably just as well you didn't.

I must not be a very good Christian, because I would have told that person and "I respect you as much as Jesus respected the Pharisees."

I guess if this is the kind of stuff you've gotten, I can understand another comment you made earlier.

It's the old "love the sinner, hate the sin, and all sins are equal in Gods eyes" line. They start of by saying that they "love me" and how they love me because Jesus said so, then they tack on the fact that Jesus teaches to love the sinner and hate the sin, so they 'love me just like all the child molesters, rapists, and murderers of the world.' If you try and refute the logic you are simply told that 'God sees all sins as equal. Theft is as bad as murder or rape.'

Of course, I consider that a step up from being called an abomination, a cancer on society, a child of Satan, among many other colorful and wonderful descriptions of who I supposedly am... from societies impression of gay men being child molesters (something the Catholic Church is working hard to bring back in full fashion after we've done so much work to dispel it), to the evil masterminds of some massive agenda to take over the world, to the stereo type of being dirty and sexually promiscuous, to hell - you name it I'm sure most gays have either called it or stereo typed by it.

"I love you just like all the other sinners in the world, the rapists, the child molesters and the murderers."


I'm really sorry.

You know, though, with their head in the position it must be for them to come to that conclusion, I don't think the book would fit anyway.

So, it's probably just as well you didn't.

I must not be a very good Christian, because I would have told that person and "I respect you as much as Jesus respected the Pharisees."

I guess if this is the kind of stuff you've gotten, I can understand another comment you made earlier.

Honestly, I don't know what God thinks about Gays, since He's never once thought to pop down and tell me. It can't be that important.

I know there is some obscure verse in King James or something that fundies have latched onto and I've heard it before, but I remember thinking, "How did they get anti-gay out of that?" before tossing it out as ridiculous.

I've known too many wonderful gay people to worry about it though. I figure it isn't really my place to judge anyone in the first place. NOW THAT IS in the Bible, "Judge not lest ye be judged."

I really like cultural anthropology and it seems to me that a lot of these decisions about keeping marriage sacrosanct was about producing enough offspring that survived at times when infant mortality was very high and hopefully having extras to send into the church.

So even though we don't need to overpopulate the earth birth control and homosexuality are still ?wrong? How? Why? I don't see it.

I think the Romans had more to do with our collective perceptions of "gay" as being bad, though. Because during that time young slave boys were usually used against their will. Yet to me that is not "gay" issue it's a "pedofile" issue and there is as much or more of that going on in the hetro circles.

Of course, I was formed in my LGBT opinions by what I saw at our evangelical Christian college. Only one of my LGB (no transgendered allowed in) friends actually graduated. The rest were forced out by all of the hazing and horrible treatment by the administration--supposedly all in the name of Christ. Still makes me ill to think of it.

That "love the sinner" crap is just that. Crap. My opinion is that if Jesus didn't make a point of it and instead focused on how we are to love everyone with no qualifiers, then that settles it. I personally don't care what St. Paul said about homosexuality, as he wrote some nasty stuff about some women who were running a church he'd been to. He wasn't exactly Christ, so his "commandments" aren't as important.

Jesus said that the two greatest commandments are to love God with everything we have (hard to do) and to love our neighbors as ourselves (also hard to do). We Christians should focus more on those than anything else in the Bible.

Sorry to interject, but I was reading along and was horrified that anyone would say anything so awful to you. I know it happens, saw it happen repeatedly to friends, but it still horrifies me.

But I do draw a distinction between the self-professed religious left and the actual religious left.

If someone declared themselves a liberal, but then agreed with just about everything the Bush Administration has done, I don't think I'd be stepping out of bounds by questioning their status as a liberal. Similarly, if someone claims to be a member of the religious left, I don't think it's unfair to challenge that claim if that person holds a bigoted view of homosexuality. Rather than calling them a member of the religious left, I'd call them a wolf in sheep's clothing.

(But since I'm spending my Sunday morning eating Fruit Loops in front of a computer, maybe I shouldn't be the one to judge who is and isn't a member of the religious left.)


Also, as an aside, I think that taken at face value "love the sinner, hate the sin" is a noble concept. It's defining homosexuality as a sin which is repulsive. It's a shame that the former has become a code for the latter.

and stand up for gay rights and by other Christians I've been told I'm anti-Christian because I'm for gay rights! What someone else does has no effect on me. We should all be treated equally in the eyes of the law. Because I'm white, straight and a Christian I shouldn't be treated more favorably by my government. For my stance on this issue I've been told and called horrible things. Yes it does hurt but I'm doing the right thing and will never back down.

Sure, I may be segregated and go around seeing signs saying: "No Dogs, No Colors, No Jews, No Fags" but at least I wouldn't be sitting in a Concentration Camp. Besides, not all of the Religious Left is anti-gay and I also have to remember that many LGBT people are religious to some extent as well.


Screw everyone else so long as you're ok? That sounds pretty much like the position of the Religious Right-aka the Religious Wrong. "I have mine so f*ck everybody else".

Nice attitude to take.

"Screw everyone else so long as you're ok? That sounds pretty much like the position of the Religious Right-aka the Religious Wrong. "I have mine so f*ck everybody else".

Nice attitude to take."


Granted the example is a bit harsh, but what she said was more about finding even small areas of agreement and picking the lesser of two "evils" for lack of a better word.

And the poster definately doesn't full heartedly trust the Religious Left and DEFINATELY doesn't trust the Religious Wrong, but sees a better chance of actually working with the left since there are many other areas of agreement and a lot of Christians don't buy the "gay bad" bit hook line and sinker.

I didn't hear the poster saying "I have mine so **** everyone else," and I just don't see how you heard that.

(paraphrasing) "I'll be seeing signs saying no dogs, no fags, etc. but at least I won't be in a concentration camp". In other words "other people will be in concentration camps, suffering and dying but at least I won't, so whoop-de-doo".

It strikes me like those on the far Right--"Other people are poor and dying, but I have my riches so I don't give a damn."

I read it to mean that if we work with the Religious Left, then we can at least be sure they won't put us in a Concentration Camp because although they might have a problem with Gays, it isn't on the level of insanity that the Religious Right does.

I heard that at it's worst the Religious Left is like dealing with Southern style discrimination, but it's still better than dealing with the Religious Right that has lost it's collective mind and could be capable of doing anything (including concentration camps) and smearing God's name all over it.

I must say I don't even like "Southern Style" discrimination and would like to rid the nation of it, but it is far better than the Reich-wing variation.

I would like to see the Religious Left band together and fight the Religious Right. They, to my knowledge, are far bigger than the Right, and therefore could be much more powerful if they would only raise their voices.

talking about the Religious Left as being the ones to do the job of getting the Religious Right to knock off their craziness.

" I would like to see the Religious Left band together and fight the Religious Right. They, to my knowledge, are far bigger than the Right, and therefore could be much more powerful if they would only raise their voices. "

I ended up getting sidetracked by that one part. I do that sometimes, particularly when I'm tired and not feeling so great. Thanks for setting me right. :hug:

Sorry I didn't put my point across very well. It was an extreme comparison, but basically it boils down to this.

I know where the Religious Right stands on gay issues. I know where their inevitable conclusion leads (my death, the death of everyone who opposes them, so basically all of our deaths), and while all of the Religious Left may not embrace gays as equals to themselves I can sleep better at night knowing that at least I'm not going to end up in a concentration camp.

It's picking a poison. I am very confident with a strong Religious Left that LGBT people will be able to push for gay marriage and succeed. Even if all of the Religious Left doesn't support gay marriage, they would fight it with much less zeal than those on the right and will even be divided among themselves about the issue. It ensures for a weak opposition therefore allowing LGBT people to get the rights that we deserve and have been fighting for since the rise of Christianity when it first became a big no-no to be gay in the Western World.

Ironically the anti-gay thing for Christians started as a political move to gain power. (Things don't change much.) Gays, Sterile Men, and men who were castrated were trusted among a leaders wife and his concubines. He did not have to worry about him sleeping with them and therefore having any of his wives having a child that was not his. The Catholic Church saw this and made moves against gays and eunuchs. It is also one of the reason Catholic Priests are celibate as they could be trusted around women.

It's all about power and control. Ironically many Christians who hate gays claim that we have some evil agenda that will allow us to gain power and take over the world. I suppose in a way they are just afraid we'll eventually turn to our former positions.

faith in general, don't you think? Why engage in friendly fire?

And, as I've said elsewhere, there is a time to debate and there is a time to stay silent. The most recent example of the latter being the last presidential campaign, when many progressives felt it prudent to remain silent regarding one issue or another, in the interest of getting a Democratic president elected.

Frankly, if the "people of faith" purportedly so crucial to my well-being can't stand a little criticism, they're not going to be much good in a fire-fight anyway.

and here is another. Over 80 percent of the people in the country call themselves Christians in some shape or form. Another almost 10 percent call themselves people of another faith.

So if we, as Democrats, whose ultimate goal should be to get back in power, ignore these numbers then I would suggest we are swimming upstream against a whole LOT OF BIG FISH.

If the religious right is using the Bible to say they are doing what is correct and good in God's eyes, but they are doing heinous things, then let the religious left fight back with them in their own language.

I'm sure you don't want to take the time to study the Bible and tell them exactly how full of shit they are. But someone should. Even if you don't believe in God, the thing is these imposters who say they are speaking for Him are even lying about that.

Simply from a perspective of what these religions really mean to the people who choose to believe vs how they can stolen from the people and used as crowd control or worse, most anyone can see that this part of the war is something the religious left is prepared to fight.

I want my Constitution, my Bill of Rights, my Country AND my Faith back. These bozos have stolen everything. I may never have need of the 3rd Ammendment in the Bill of Rights, but I want it back anyway.

You may not have any interest in seeing that religion is guarded against misuse because you'd rather see it dismantled. I'd like to see you free from the repression of religion mixed with government, but I don't think we have to destroy other people's right to their own beliefs to accomplish that.

... more a matter of talking them into seeing things in a better light. Or even refusing to pretend to be a part of their, er, faith system, which is bound to seem confrontational at times.

For me, like many others, I arrived at my atheism the old-fashioned way: via religion. Years and years of standard church upbringing, followed by still more years of sincere seeking. All along trying to find a way to confront the growing sense that it was all a Great Big Nothing. Then finally, reversing my own paradigm a bit: not "confronting" doubts but "embracing" a suddenly much clearer view, a more honest perspective. Very liberatimg.

So like many others I can fight back with their own language to some extent. But I don't think the goal ought to be to "out-religion" the other side. I'd rather we score our points with reason and sound, practicle policies that will make positive, measurable changes in the real world, in issues of genuine concern to ordinary people.

They don't offer that. We should.

However, I wonder why we can't do both? Why can't we have the Religious Right and Left fighting their little war while doing what you suggest? It is not like the Religious Left is against stronger separation of Church and State.

You forget that it was many of those of faith who WANTED a strong wall between Church and State in the first place, most notably the Baptists. In fact it was in a letter to the Baptists that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" was coined, as it does not appear in the first amendment as many believe.

Replace Congregationalist with Religious Right and Baptist with Religious Left and you have the same scenario today. They know that the Religious Right holds a monopoly on Religion. It is like Windows vs Linix. They have every reason to want separation of church and state.

Of course, it is right to worry what would happen if the Religious Left actually replaced the Religious Right - to wonder if they would feel the same way after the fact. It is easy to see why a minority Religion would want protection from a majority religion, but what about later on if they become the majority religion? We know how most Southern Baptists feel today about the Separation of Church and State so we only need to look at history.

That is why you put strong wording in before that happens. The phrase "Separation of Church and State" actually needs to literally be enshrined in the Constitution. It needs to literally be spelled out what that means exactly.

After all if nothing else the Religious Left will keep the Religious Right busy long enough where something might actually get accomplished. I believe that, in and of itself, is worth it.

"After all if nothing else the Religious Left will keep the Religious Right busy long enough where something might actually get accomplished. I believe that, in and of itself, is worth it."

I say we have a Democratic party that has it greatest strength in its diversity. We can battle the lies wherever they pop up as long as we aren't busy fighting with each other.

There is plenty of work for each of us to do and we should each go with our strengths and try to learn from each other as well so we become stronger as well.

Unfortunately, we will be cleaning this mess up for generations, so building our ally base is probably the most important thing we can do right now to ensure a real and lasting success.

The religious left, btw, is represented by people who looked at Jesus washing his Apostles feet and understand He was urging them to not act holier than others, but to always see themselves as servants of God and be humble.

Taking over a country isn't what TRUE believers of Christ are about. We know that He also told them not to bicker about who would be seated next to Him in Heaven and that whole, the last shall be first and the first shall be last IS written in the Bible.

Really making Heaven on Earth is an inclusive thing, not a dominance thing. Jesus hung out with "the least among us" and He gave them His love just the same, sometimes more than the pompus ass pharisees thought He should. Anyone following Jesus' example isn't looking to take over any country or force any one to believe in Him.

... measurable changes in the real world, in issues of genuine concern to ordinary people."

However, I think that individual motivation on these can vary without having to "get into religion" or "keep out religion" at the personal level.

There are those who see "making a difference in this world" as part of their faith. It would be hard for someone who really believes that way to divorce themselves of their motivation.

Someone once explained the spiritual difference between DEMS and rethugs. DEMs want the government to follow the "One Nation Under God" when it comes to helping those in need, but to keep the law off of individuals and their beliefs. rethugs want the government to legislate individual behavior and let people in need learn from experience to not be so needy.

I do talk with fundies, and I do engage in debates with evangelicals. I believe that we can win their votes, if not their hearts, if we explain things in language they understand.

I went to one of their colleges. I used to be one of them but never felt comfortable with the logical extension of their beliefs. That said, I know their language and can at least make them uncomfortable or even think occasionally.

I even won over a couple on phone canvassing for Kerry last year, although I lost one when she went into crazy anti-gay land. Seriously, I hung up on her, as she was lost.

That demographic is mine, and I work on them every chance I get. I don't proselytize or try to make them come over to my kind of church--I just try to get them thinking about what our faith really says and how it should be enacted in real life.

The real problem isn't things like, oh, the war, or social injustice, or a weak economy. The real problem is that Zenenlighted has a hardon about religion and wants people to just plan stop it.

Yeah, maybe people can take a stand without dragging god into it. Maybe they can't. Maybe the important thing is that they take a stand. Not to you, of course, but to the country and the rest of us that aren't taking part in your manichean struggle against religion.

Not big on boundaries, are you? Or is this a part of your fetish, a political porn of some sort?

:shrug:

Or pretend to. Pretending that you are oppressed, victimized, and now, the reliable ally. I call bullshit. It's not much more of a step to pretend to be a victim of sexual harrassment, is it?

It's a political forum. What's more, it's a liberal, democratic forum. You have another agenda: you've a personal problem with religion, a desire to see it gone, and not much else. You don't fit in. You really should find a forum that has the other side of the fundie coin.

Good luck with your cosmic beef with religion. It's all you have, after all.

:shrug:

Although I do like your pronouncement that I "don't fit in" and should merely begone.

Wow! What a trip it must be, to be you! :rofl:

Seriously, dude, if you get the same posts from me, it's because you are johnny one note. Yeah, yeah, you hate religion and religionists, and think them the root of all evil WE GET IT ALREADY.

And you don't care about anything else except your personal problem with religion. WE KNOW. That's why you pooh pooh the thought of political alliances with religious types. You don't want to accomplish anything like that. You have a manichean struggle with religion, with you and the athiests on the one side and religion on the other. It's the same world view the fundies have. You're the other side of the coin.

Sound familiar? Of course it does. It's true, and really sums you up. You're not a democrat, or a liberal. You're an atheist fundamentalist. Go away.

Your research lacks rigor, to say the least. "Dude."

But please, do keep on telling me what my politics are, and where I may discuss them!

It's not research to call you what you are. It's reading. Your same thesis on religion over and over.

You're a bore, and the other side of the fundie coin. Go have it out with the fundie religionists, since you both agree on the manichaen struggle with each other, and let others discuss liberal democratic values without you changing the subject to your personal cosmic beef.

... proclamations about where I may and may not post carry any weight.

If anything, your braying shows the utter weakness of your position, and your fear of hearing anything that contradicts your point of view. It seems to exhaust you, this effort to clamp down on all opinions that don't suit you.

Makes you cranky, and a bit of a bore yourself. But although you can whimper and wail about you'll permit to be a liberal and who you'll not, the fact is that you just don't seem suited to participate in a discussion forum yourself.

Maybe that's why you project this particular failing of yours onto me tonight. You claim to be tired of my "thesis" on this topic, but apparently have plenty of energy to throw a little temper tantrum and demand that I stop saying things you don't want to hear.

That you find a way to call me a "fundie" in the process doesn't to anything to disguise your own rigidity on this issue. That you can claim I've "changed the topic" suggests you don't even bother to read the thread before leaping in with your usual toxic blend of ignorance and attitude.

And believe me, if I thought for a moment that you, of all people, were a champion of liberal democratic values, I'd have written the obituary for this party long ago.

The ironies just keep coming and coming, don't they?

And of course, I'm rigid. In what way, pray tell? Rigidly defending actual tolerance? Another extremist for moderation?

Really, go away. As much as you pretend to be a victim, it's just for the purpose of taking whacks at believers and religion, including liberal ones. You don't care about the liberal. It's all about the religion. You've got one issue, and the world is divided on one side or another, and you can't buy another topic for the life of you. You've the black and white, good and evil, manichean struggle of the fundie.

You aren't liberal, you aren't democratic. You're a fundamentalist.

And a bore, as all fundies are.

... -- not to mention what I've said and how I've said it -- I think it still comes across more as a projection of your own inadequacies than anything else.

You have no facts, you have no logical arguments, you have only an endless supply of sanctimonious indignation. So you resort to crying "go away!" With the occasional "no-I'm-not-YOU-are" post thrown in for good measure.

Really, your statements make an interesting case study of what the tired, the isolated and the unimaginative can achieve when given a keyboard and access to the internet. Your sole contribution to this discussion -- as has happened so often -- has been to complain that not everyone thinks the way you do. Or that they don't post in a way you approve -- because apparently you're keeping track not only by count but by type as well.

Perhaps you'd like to draft some more explicit rules for how to participate on DU, and forward them to the admins? That way we can be sure you'll never face the ordeal of confronting an opinion that contradicts your own. Though I have every confidence that you'd find a way to make life unpleasant for everyone around you, no matter what.

You almost seem unhappy that the rules don't ban you, as it hurts your claim to victimhood, which you rise above by declaring yourself the paragon of logic and reason by virtue of....well, you know why.

First you perceive the world as a manichaen struggle between atheism and religion, then you attribute to yourself all sorts of good qualities for being on the right side, and damn anyone who disagrees to the other with all its evil attributes. I get the same from the fundie believers as I get from you. There's not a whit of difference between you fundie types except the names change.

... based largely on your own shortcomings, it seems.

And what's really crazy is, you assume that I'm religious and a believer because I call you on your bullshit.

It's your worldview as a dichtomy between believers and non-believers. There's no room for any other topic, other issue, other points of view. That's why you've got one topic and are an intolerant bore, like all fundies.

Why do you put up with all this tolerance and liberal live and let live shit? Go find solace with your fellow fundies. Have that kumbaya moment. You don't belong here.

... you're a nasty, bitter person who attempts to shed his own toxic bile by spewing it at others.

And every time you post you confirm this assumption.

It's really good! I got some after I whupped Inland on our last thread.

See, unlike you, I haven't made it a point to see myself in a Manichean struggle You and the other fundies are only waiting for someone to "reveal" which side they are on. Once you've pigeonholed someone, you think you know everything there is to know.

It's a unidimensional, bigoted, and fundamentally false worldview, and fundies of either side of the coin are not liberal.

As you and the approximately two other fundamentalist atheists spend so much time arguing that believers shouldn't be "coddled", and reinforcing each other in the kumbaya, self righteous moments, why not just leave and form your own little party? After all, the whole tolerance thing leaves you cold and you have already said that believers are untrustworthy political allies. So take your handful and begone.

The democrats will keep all the atheists who can tolerate believers, the believers that can tolerate atheists, and somehow manage without you and the other fundies. Good for you, good for us, good for America.

... while misinterpreting and mis-characterizing the positions of your opponent.

Now, where I have seen that tactic at work before...?

But you go n repeating your talking points, and shrilly instructing me to stop posting on DU. If only I had known I was tangling with someone who wields such power over DU...

:rofl:

...as them being useful. You can't deny the fact that the majority of Americans, unfortunately, hold some religious belief. We can't just poo-poo on all of them even if we don't agree. Would you rather the Religious Right be the voice of Religion or have a more agreeable version for our side?

That's really what it's all about. I believe in freedom and that freedom extends to letting folks believe whatever they want, provided they don't try and enforce it on anyone else. We need them, probably more than they need us which is unfortunate - though by working together we can certainly get much accomplished. Don't you agree?

I don't view it as coddling I view it as being diplomatic. There is a difference, besides I'm gay - do you honestly think religion is a big friend of mine? I'm just a hop and a skip away from being put on a stake and burned alive in America, which is why I most certainly have a vested interest in ensuring that a version of Christianity that is pro-gay is promoted.

... these days. I'm in no hurry to stop it.

And I honestly don't know how much the religionists purporting to be progressive can be trusted... particularly on the issue of Liberty and Justice for All. Too many seem perfectly willing to deny marriage equality for gays and lesbians, giving the weak excuse of their "religion." Our most recent candidate for president comes to mind.

So I find it somewhat galling that these people want want want more more more, when they can so casually pick and choose which of my values they'll accept and which they'll toss in the trash-heap based on their "faith."

A person of faith is required to have a soul, and becoming a politician requires you to sell it. So once you become one you automatically are a soulless blood sucking monster - either that or no one ever gets to hear from you. So Kerry doesn't count.

To tell me you couldn't support these folks?


http://www.crosswalkamerica.org/


Christian love of God includes:
1. Walking fully in the path of Jesus, without denying the legitimacy of other paths God may provide humanity;

2. Listening for God’s Word which comes through daily prayer and meditation, through studying the ancient testimonies which we call Scripture, and through attending to God’s present activity in the world;

3. Celebrating the God whose Spirit pervades and whose glory is reflected in all of God’s Creation, including the earth and its ecosystems, the sacred and secular, the Christian and non-Christian, the human and non-human;

4. Expressing our love in worship that is as sincere, vibrant, and artful as it is scriptural.

Christian love of neighbor includes:
5. Engaging people authentically, as Jesus did, treating all as creations made in God’s very image, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental ability, nationality, or economic class;

6. Standing, as Jesus does, with the outcast and oppressed, the denigrated and afflicted, seeking peace and justice with or without the support of others;

7. Preserving religious freedom and the Church’s ability to speak prophetically to government by resisting the commingling of Church and State;

8. Walking humbly with God, acknowledging our own shortcomings while honestly seeking to understand and call forth the best in others, including those who consider us their enemies;

Christian love of self includes:
9. Basing our lives on the faith that, in Christ, all things are made new, and that we, and all people, are loved beyond our wildest imagination – for eternity;

10. Claiming the sacredness of both our minds and our hearts, recognizing that faith and science, doubt and belief serve the pursuit of truth;

11. Caring for our bodies, and insisting on taking time to enjoy the benefits of prayer, reflection, worship and recreation in addition to work;

12. Acting on the faith that we are born with a meaning and purpose; a vocation and ministry that serves to strengthen and extend God’s realm of love.

... "creations made in god's image"... "the Church’s ability to speak prophetically to government."

All of that is complete and utter horseshit, in my considered opinion. Depraved and, in the long run, almost always dangerous to the dignity of the human being.

Can't they just agree to act like decent people, because that's what decent people do?

And if not, if they insist on their god-talk, is it really required of me to jump to my feet and shout "hallelujah" and "amen" right along with them? It's disgusting, truly repugnant, and yet some in that cabal would demand that I simply shut up and go along before they would consider me an ally.

No, coddling the religionists is not the answer. The true progressives among them will do what's right and fair because that's what progressives do. Those who won't -- those who insist on obeisance -- will stab us in the back the moment the mood strikes them, anyway.

think they're full of shit. Crazy, stupid ideas are considered mainstream because everyone is afraid to "offend" these lunies.

Well, the fucking Earth wasn't created 4,000 years ago by a Sky God and Adam and Eve were not the first humans. To pretend otherwise is to be sucked into Insane World.

But in this society, I'm considered subversive because I don't believe in supernatural things like angels and other cloud dwelling creatures and bullshit myths like a person who lived 2,000 years ago is going to come down to Earth aaaaaany day now to save us all.

Some will advise us to wait wait wait, but I think the conditions are ripe for a real paradigm shift in this country. So even the small battles matter, the small statements we make in defense of reason.

I don't think so. If you're going to take away my right to freedom of religion than I'll fight you on it.

:eyes:

I think the time is right for a backlash against religious superstition.

Yep. Sounds like it to me.

... constitution"?

The term "backlash" is generally used in the context of social or political movements.

Which in this case would be the secular- or reason-minded elements of our society finally standing up and pushing back against the religionists and their imposition superstitions.

Really, try not to be so paranoid.

Hard not to be. I have people on the right who want to get me for being a liberal and people on the left who want to get me for being a Christian. Excuse me while I explode. :banghead: :nuke:

... I would have no idea at all that you're a christian, or any other religion.

You sound very angry at religious people and it seems partly like this is your own thing. We need MORE tolerance, not LESS for everyone's beliefs.

I simply think that people who believe differently than I do are interesting and offer me some objectivity to my own ways of thinking.

I realize the religious right is beating people over the head with the Bible lately, but that doesn't square with the message Jesus preached, so I don't even consider them to be valid messengers for Him.

It really does matter to me that separation of church and state gets back on track. I hate what religious people have done to make those who believe differently feel that they aren't as important or respected in this country.

If we have a paradigm shift, that is what I would like to see -- everyone being respected no matter what their beliefs, skin color etc...

Please note the spelling: L-I-T-E... meaning diluted or lesser or watered-down. Hardly a boast of my "spiritual" state, more a bit of self-deprecation.

In any event, I don't agree that we need more tolerance of religious beliefs. I think we need a greater freedom to say "keep that stuff away from me, we're trying to come up with a budget here, not a book of the saved."

And it may be that the paradigm shifts we envision may overlap in many ways, in that removing religion from its obscuring position will clear they was to a society where reason prevails over superstition. Clears the way to replacing fear with respect when it comes to our differences in terms of other belief systems, cultural contexts, skin color etc.

When you say keep "religion" out of the budget, I can see it is an issue of HOW we say things that matters.

For example, you may agree that we need to increase funding to programs that help people pay their heating bills because the price of natural gas is going up and those programs have been slashed, but you don't want to hear anything about how it is our "Christian duty to help those in need" because that isn't your motivation.

It may be simply unacceptable to you as a fellow human to see people freeze to death because the pRes had to have this war with Iraq and blew off LA and the rest of the victims of Katrina. AND it would be really nice for THAT motivation to be equally lauded.

Am I anywhere near close to understanding what you mean by keeping religion out of the budget?

I don't necessarily agree that reason and faith have to conflict. Even in science there is a lot we don't know now that could explain people's long held beliefs. Some day we'll know and until then, let people be free to think what they like.

Power of prayer and touch healing could be some sort of electromagnetic telekinetic gift that we can't measure at the level of knowledge we have now for example. There was a time surgeons scrubbed only AFTER surgery with no thought to causing infection by going in with germ covered hands. If bad stuff can pass between us, why not good stuff?

I still don't think we should teach the Bible's creation story as scientific fact, but who knows, maybe it happened that way and evolution is only really off with the missing link bit.

Maybe we are a long lost space colony. I don't know for sure and it would be hard to listen to a true believer of that theory with a straight face, but I could probably manage. It would certainly answer the question of who built the pyramids.

Oh, and after reading about FSM in Wikipedia, I see why Ulyses was cracking up. FSM is stated to be a satirical parody of religion... and if it really proved true, what would you do?

Still, I'm guessing after reading more of your posts it's basically an attempt to ask people to not take things so seriously or at immediate face value because someone in authority said so. Rather to think things through and decide for oneself.

I don't want to hear politicians nattering on about "Christian duty." I don't want my political party to base its platforms on "christian duty."

This, in part because I see "human duty" as a superior value, one that is far more inclusive. And also because, in the pages of history, "christian duty" far too often precedes oppression, repression and outright murder.

Re: whether faith and reason are or are not in conflict. Maybe it's best if we leave that for another thread. Based on your examples, I'm not sure we'd find a lot of agreement. Sure people are free to believe whatever they want. But there are some things we can generally agree are facts, and there are others that must be taken on faith in the absense of facts. Again, if the pages of history are any guide, conflict is inevitable, peaceful coexistence a temporary state, at best.

:hi:

I happen to also be a sci-fi fan and have quite a New-Age and Eastern influence to my faith. I'm sure you would think I am totally apeshit nuts and I wouldn't blame you. It does keep me from going insane, though (being a little nuts) so it is beneficial.

Basically, I understand why you don't believe in the various things you mentioned and the details to me in many instances aren't important.

What IS important to me and what the religious right is missing ENTIRELY is the EXAMPLE of how Jesus lived and treated people. If the religious right WERE really following Christ's example, they wouldn't be bashing gays or blacks or poor people.

And as for people who believed differently, Jesus walked up to a Samaritan who was even an outcast among her own people and told her that the time would come when differnces would be cast aside and people would worship together in many places. The Samaritans were reviled by the Jews at the time and had this major argument about who was worshiping "correctly". Jesus also used a Samaritan to make the point that it is in our kind and loving actions that make us good neighbors, not any pedigree we think we have.

Look at Jimmy Carter. Did he sell his soul? I don't think so.

Wow, I don't appreciate being used. If that's the whole point of your thread than, for me to be used by your own agenda, than I don't appreciate that. I've been used enough in my life and I'm tired of it.

I have a much longer reply to you downthread, but I have to say this here: Your last two or three posts illustrate EXACTLY what I'm saying (downthread) -- just switch "people of faith" with "gay people"!

In fact, I'll quote some of your remarks -- with my edits in bold. Imagine a politically-minded Christian (lib or con, doesn't matter) brainstorming about the best way to get queers to vote for a certain party:

If you believe you're gay so deeply ... are you more likely to be agreeable to the guy who just pissed all over it or to the guy who just smiled and nodded?

It's not like gay people are going away. There is always going to be a segment of the population out who are homosexual. It's not like we can stomp it out, and if we could have we would have been able to do it by now.

You should know as well as I do that trying to argue with homosexuals using the fact they're sinners and going to hell doesn't work. I'm sure you've tried it just as I have, so instead of trying to save their souls...

. . .

Think of it as gay people being useful for their votes and their campaign contributions. ... We can't just poo-poo on all of them even if we don't agree. ...

I believe in freedom and that freedom extends to letting folks sleep with whoever they want, provided they don't try and force it on anyone else. We need them, probably more than they need us which is unfortunate - though by working together we can certainly get much accomplished.

Also:

Although to be honest I really haven't seen any lefty Religious folks stomping on non-believers like us. If they do it we can call them on it.

Well, I have seen it, and no, we cannot call them on it. Not without consequences. I'd give you an example of exactly what you haven't seen, if you want to PM me.

As for being willing to be "treated like a bitch" by anybody and being willing to put up with "No Fags" signs (what next? water coolers "For Straights Only"?), your thinking worries me -- a lot. All the compromise is on our side -- where's their sacrifice?

I feel you're asking us non-Christians (especially queers) to bend over backwards, without demanding -- or even expecting -- the same. I can't bend that far without breaking.

It boils down to this: I AM WILLING to overlook somebody else's faith in order to work together politically -- but most of the time, they REFUSE to overlook my being gay!

I agree with a lot that you've said. And after that wowzer post, I did attempt to lighten this up a bit.

NO ONE should feel they have to put up with being treated as a bitch and if a Christian does it to anyone in my presence they will think the Lord Himself came upon them when I get finished because wrong is wrong.

And yet, I can't help but think the OP was merely asking for respectful behavior AND YES it MUST be on both sides. HERE on DU is a better place to start because most people here DO believe in tolerance.

The problem is that each of us can only control our own behavior and it IS a scary world out there with people who call themselves Christians hurting others in His name.

My mother was like that when she talked about gays - 700 Clubitis - and she was herself wounded by life and not real put together on knowing how to show love to her own kids either. Yet as outspoken as my mom was I never saw her actually say anything bad to any gay person ever. It's like face to face my mother saw people as people, but she still had these stupid ideas.

I was being as blunt as I possibly could and spelling out exactly what non-believers get out of working together with Christians. Although when I wrote it gays weren't what came to my mind it was black folks. I kept saying "those people", and I really didn't like saying that all that much. I just didn't know how to convey in text my point without clearly illustrating that I'm not taking a side so much as standing in the middle.

We have a mixed marriage; my husband is a Pastafarian - I'm a Religious Scientist and Universalist.

Hubby knows that I'm not a fan of spaghetti - more of a penne kind of person.

It works.

I don't think Spirit/Universal-Consciousness cares what you call It; the FSM is fine by me.


;-)

We believe that each person is unique perfection (a piece of Spirit sent here to experience for Spirit) - thus, gays, lesbians, heterosexuals, bi sexuals, trans, questioning, tall, short, big, tiny, black, white, ebony, ivory, red-headed, atheist, agnostic, believer, non-believer, whomever - each are perfect just as they are.

Of course, there are inevitable consequences to BEHAVIOR - such as jail/fines for ol' Randy Cunningham (but that's another story).

I agree with the O.P. - I wish to treat all progressively-minded people with respect: Methodists, Episcopalians, United Church of Christ members, Unity members, Church of Religious Science members, etc.

It is a daily struggle for me to treat conservatives with respect; most times I am successful because, deep down, I want to treat all people with a certain level/kind of respect.

& none of that is true. Where are you getting your information? People of faith come from so many walks of life. One of my favorite people is Rell Sun, one of the first competitive female surfers. She believed, in the Hawaiian tradition, that her ancestors protected her while she surfed or dove for sea food. The religious right has hijacked religion in a bad way, in an evil way. Please don't be so narrow minded as to confuse true people of faith with evil doers.

... coddling and spoon-feeding were unnecessary.

Please note my use of the question mark ("?") in previous posts.

As for talk of ancestors protecting surfers, what am I to make of that? Am I supposed to admire that state of mind?

:shrug:

& if you want to coddle and spoon feed me bananas, hey what the heck? I'll ask my hubby.

What is this, Reading Incomprehension Night at DU?

or something to that effect?

about the diversity of world wide religious beliefs, and the relevance of those beliefs.

I respect people of all faiths - and everyone believes in something. I don't feel it's my place to define anyone's spiritual business just because I know what church they go to or don't.

Whether a person is religious or not, mainstream or simply works with the hope that there is enough good in the people of the world that we'll eventually get it figured out before we blow ourselves up, I DO NOT believe in BODY SLAMMING my ALLIES because they profess to believe in God.

I understand that it's a lot different than the Religious Right and the rethuglicans thinking they OWN God.

There is a whole group called Clergy and Laity Concerned About Iraq that went to DC Sept 24-26th and leaders from all denominations spoke out against spending money on Iraq and in doing so ignoring our people at home and allowing the great tragedy to happen in New Orleans.

They spoke as well about putting aside our differences and doing the things we must to end this administration's ungodly hold on America. If the rethugs are the Right Wing, then WE are the Rest of the Bird. Even people of faith can get it and put feet to their faith by standing up against these impostors who call themselves Christians, but persecute anyone not wearing Armani.

Though I'd argue that there is a more basic question: Why are politics and religion so intertwined in the first place?

And rather than trying out-religion the right, might we not instead try to out-reason them, with practical real-world policies and solutions that address issues -- without tossing "'cause my bible tells me so" into the conversation all the time?


(edit typos)

Some respect we give to others as a basic courtesy because that is how we wish them to treat us and in most cases when a high bar of respect is set by one person or group then those who respond in a less respectful manner are actually looked upon as being less honorable.

Course lately that axim has been turned on its head and so many times political discussions have turned into knock down, drag out shouting matches.

I guess respect in this instance as I see it is agreeing to disagree. It takes a strong person to hold their own beliefs in the face of others who strongly promote other beliefs. Agreeing to disagree says that each person is entitled to their own ideas even after both sides have stated their cases.

It takes an even stronger person to refuse to be dragged into a battle over which beliefs are "better" which is why although I'm basically a Christian, I really admire the Eastern masters who don't propose to know all the answers, simply to be searching for the truths as they are revealed. You can't GET those people to argue with you because they aren't about making anyone see it their way.

Ironically, I've had some of my best religious discussions with an old Pagan I used to hang out with.

ON DU I think if you throw in the disclaimer that not all Christian's are assholes, it's a step in the right direction; but there is a mile or two between that and coddling someone. Lots of choices in there.

Just stating that you want to make an effort to try and see someone else's viewpoint and hopefully not judge them right away can make you less understood as well. We don't all present ourselves well in the first paragraph or so sometimes so if you see something that seems like a jab, check it out before blasting.

I've wound up with some really good conversations on DU once misunderstandings got cleared up. We all have our own filters and none of us is perfect.

Peace.

"There is a whole group called Clergy and Laity Concerned About Iraq that went to DC Sept 24-26th and leaders from all denominations spoke out against spending money on Iraq and in doing so ignoring our people at home and allowing the great tragedy to happen in New Orleans."

How many people heard about that? How many people even know about that group? This is why the Religious Left *NEEDS* us to help amplify their voice.

It was on flyers all over the place, but by Sunday when they had their Interdenominational Service a lot of people had gone home.

Many people heard, but probably about 100-200 were there that evening for the service.

This group is involved with United For Peace and Justice and when I did work as a receptionist for a Church, I know a lot of ministers meet together on justice issues and put aside their religious differences for the time together.

I don't believe I have EVER posted ANYTHING on DU that was bashing to any member of any group that I may find offensive. As of this post, you still don't have any idea who I might find offensive or what beliefs or ideals I find offensive (the current wave of evil in the white house and all its manifestations throughout the world being the exception). You just don't know. You could guess and guess again and still be off the mark.

Go ahead. Do a search on my posts and see if I'm telling the truth.

I don't need coddling of any sort. I give and expect to get pretty much in like kind (on this board).

I have looked and looked in vain to find as broad a paintbrush as you are using now. Wouldn't that make my job of painting my house go that much more quickly?!

I also have a strong affinity for Zen, and, while I do not think I have experienced satori (without the help of some of the powerful psychedelics I used to ingest), I would say to you, "Are you still carrying that woman? I put her down by the river's edge."

Is this all about you?

"Go ahead and search your posts"?

Right. Maybe I'll just wait until you post something of substance, and react or not depending on the statement you make.

Do you draw a distinction between me, for example, a life-long Christian and Pat Robertson?

... I haven't seen your TV show. Are you on cable?

Or more to the point, do you spend your days framing everything in terms of your idea of a deity, and insisting that everyone else do the same?

That'd be a sign -- of a particularly non-divine nature -- that one is a religionist.

I think you're in a better position to answer your question than I.

To demand everyone think like you do in order to be respected is no better behavior than Jerry Falwell exhibits.

It seems to me you have failed to read the OP, which in the language it uses goes far beyond tolerance, IMO.

Then you make a leap directly to "demanding everyone think like you."

Huh?

that impression. Further, your insinuation that I'm beyond reason is par for the course in discussions such as these. It would be interesting to see a new and exciting insult now and again.

:hi:

It goes on to instruct us to "lift them up as pillars"... "give them a voice"... "offer our support"... and "help them flourish." That goes well beyond any standard definition of tolerance I've ever seen.

As for insinuations... interesting that you hear criticism of one of your statements, and immediately feel that you've been accused of being "beyond reason."

I dunno. Are you? :shrug:

However, the OP advocates her position ONLY the context of religion itself. She does not say that you should embrace the beliefs of people like Martin Luther King, Paul Wellstone and Gandhi. She simply states that people who do good with their faith ought to be our collective example. She further states that people on the left can use these examples when discussing matters of faith, especially when doing so with the Right Wing - who claim to have a corner on the faith/moral values market.

The gist of her statements are:

the religious left (who respects YOUR right to believe X or not) is an ally in defeating the religious right (who does not respect your right ot believe X or not.)

Reasonable?

Edited to add: See my sigline for an example of how this is done. ;) The bible has hundreds of references to helping the poor, yet the RW gives tax breaks to the wealthy and takes food from the mouths of children. If we don't address their hypocrisy from a "Biblical" standpoint, it's meaningless to them. I prefer to use their own "book of direction" against them in a debate. And, I say that as a "believer" myself. Though I'm not a biblical literalist, I feel that the book is full of great arguments against the Right Wing agenda.

However I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of the religious left being "our collective example." I frankly don't trust them all to respect my right not to believe when push comes to shove.

In any event, I don't want to see the Democratic party trying to out-religion the right. I don't want to see the Democratic party sprinkling god-talk throughout its talking points.

I'd rather not see politics framed in terms of religion at all, honestly, although the day when that little dream of mine comes true seems an incredibly long ways off.

In the meantime, when discussing matters of faith with the right wing, I'd prefer to advocate that religion be kept out policy-making entirely, rather than meekly declaring "we have religionists, too."

principles-

among them, namely, the separation of church and state.

I agree with you- calling the Religious Left "our collective example" is a little presumptuous for the millions of people in the Democratic Party who manage to be perfectly moral human beings with no particular religious belief whatsoever, thank you very much.

This BS idea that you can't be moral without "God" is noxious enough as it is.

being fundamental to our democracy. And, you'll be hard pressed to find many Democrats who disagree with that premise, personal belief in God(s) - Goddesses aside.

reality that the majority of the people in this country ascribe to a believe in a higher power. With that being the case, I am comfortable saying that my position is not only reasonable on it's face, but the most logical as well.

I also don't wish to see the Democrats out "religion" the right, but I do want us to out "moral value" them, and the Bible is an effective tool to accomplish that ~ regardless of ones personal belief system.

I'd rather not see politics framed in terms of religion at all, honestly, although the day when that little dream of mine comes true seems an incredibly long ways off.

Indeed it is a long way off. And, while we wait for something that may or may not happen, we have to win elections. We can't do that by eliminating the basic foundation for many peoples political beliefs from the topic of conversation.

As I said I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state, but I think it's a huge mistake to hand the Right Wing the God card.

... from the right wing is the key to securing election victories. And I'm not at all convinced that religion is the basic foundation for many peoples' political views.

That's the right-wing's framing, certainly, and that's how they whip their voters into line. But I don't necessarily see it as a way to motivate liberal voters. It may be that doing so would turn off more liberals than it would motivate, prompting them to join the vast numbers of eligible voters who choose not to cast ballots.

(I'd rather see our party explore ways to tap that resource before getting all gooey about god.)

As for looking to the christian bible for moral values... perhaps that's best left to another thread. There's little enough in there to go on, and it's been quite a while since anyone used it to any great effect to champion progressive causes.

and, make them eat the damn thing.

As for motivating "liberal" voters, I tend to agree that talking about God per se will not motivate the far left. But, we would motivate some on the fence and many people are sitting on those sharp prongs these days looking for a reason to become a Democrat. Many of those same people are being told that the Republican Party is the party of "Godly values" or "moral values" and I don't think we can afford to cede this issue to them. I also don't think we can let them get away with calling themselves tough on terror when GWB was in office on 911 etc. I believe in going after them on every front personally.

:hi:

There's little enough in there to go on, and it's been quite a while since anyone used it to any great effect to champion progressive causes.

I think we can and will use it in 2006/08 - and I hope that some who don't ascribe to similar beliefs will understand why when we do.

But hey, spray your god-graffiti all over the place. Pound those voters over the head with your bible. Then in December of 2006 we can all wonder -- again -- why the voters don't cast their ballots for faux-republicans.

don't ascribe to a belief in God? If you do, I'll reconsider my position which is - we should meet people where they are and take them where we want them to be.

... contest the percentages of people who profess a belief in a god of some sort?

:shrug:

But that does not negate my assertion that we have to tackle the RW on every possible front does it? It is simply not politically prudent to ignore the fact that religion of some sort is a VAST part of American life/culture.

Look, I don't know if you're deliberately trying to be nasty or not. Maybe I'm just taking a sour view after getting slimed by this Inland character -- which seems to be a hazard of participating in any thread that gets moved to this forum.

In any event, yes I do agree that we need to confront the right-wing effectively. It doesn't seem that we agree on what constitutes effectiveness, though. I see this point in American history as an opportunity to break free of religionism once and for all, and so of course that's what I advocate in a discussion.

I don't favor adopting the methods of the religious right in order to beat them at their own game. What I favor is clearly distancing ourselves from that approach, by talking about policies, by talking about the value of secularism, by being forthright in stating that we shouldn't clutter up the political process with endless talk of god.

Further, I'd have to see some proof that this is a viable time to break free from "religionism" in spite of the fact that the majority of Americans can relate to "religion" on some level.

I don't favor adopting the methods of the religious right in order to beat them at their own game.

I do not suggest adopting their methods, I suggest calling out their hypocricy with the words of the God they claim to follow.

I frankly don't trust them all to respect my right not to believe when push comes to shove.

Pick out any one of the roadside crosses, "under god" in the pledge, or "in god we trust" threads and see just how much tolerance and respect is given to the non-religious (not necessarily outright atheist) position. We're called stupid and foolish at best, totalitarian and anti-religion at worst.

in which others are tolerated as long as they "behave themselves".

That's not tolerance, of course, but a warning that you won't be tolerated. No more coddling of you folks!

never mind.

and allowing them to push us around.

Some people on these boards frequently cross that line.

Boy I could quote some lines from so called Christians of DU which they have posted here over the years. But that would get this thread locked, and I don't want to do that.

One of them is all over this thread.

:rofl:

And, it knows no bounds. Religion is only one "hot" topic here.

Don't see that from any of the more ardent religious people out there.

:woohoo:

the respect for your non-belief is often in the form of silence. Many folks are of a "live and let live" variety - you're not bothering them, they don't bother you.

Although to be honest I really haven't seen any lefty Religious folks stomping on non-believers like us. If they do it we can call them on it.

Hell, it's not like we really need to argue. As long as they aren't trying to put Intelligent Design in schools, do anything to erode the Separation of Church and State, or convert us we should be on the same page.

...and really I have constantly seen the Religious Left stand up for the Separation of Church and State. After all they have just as much to lose every time the restrictions are some how watered down. It's not like it'd be THEIR religion being taught, it'd be the Religious Right's version.

Smile. As long as you aren't drinking the koolaid, you are a welcome addition to this party.

I respect everyone - well, except those in this administration who let grannies and old ladies and soldiers and a whole lot of other people die because they can't keep their heads out of their rears long enough to really do their jobs.

care less what you believe. Can you name progressive christians who don't respect your "NON beliefs?"

in my face. How simple is that to understand?

The C-Note singing Seabat-yes how do you do?


Let me ask you have you found the prophet Matthew Burning Star IV yet?

:silly:

:silly: Believe in the invisible sky daddy all ya want, just don't shove it in my face!

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites : for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.


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

when followed, this the issue never seems to come up...

it's only a sequel of the fact that the USA has never understood the separation of Church and State, even if it's more or less clearly named in the Constitution.

Even in European nations where it is not explicitely written in law, it's mostly applied "de facto" in reality. Even in Italy.

That's why we don't have stupid Xmas debates and that's why 99% of the political discussion doesn't deal with religion itself or religion related issues like abortion. Likewise the homosexuals rights are debated from the social perspective, not the religious ones. Frankly nobody here give a fuck about what the Pope thinks, except the Poles. And the Irish go over to england to abort.

In Europe the religious sphere seldom interferes with politics. And when it does, it mostly loses, makes itself more detached from the common man.

This is the basic problem. I'd love to have a US Democrat, or whoever who could stand and say "I am going to work for a congress law that clearly amend the Constitution so the separation of Church and State is clear". I wish there will be someday a US President swearing the oath on the Constitution and not the Bible, and saying "So help me the people"...

Try to run for President with those options...

Good Luck...

There is the problem, not the loonies, not the people of "good faith..."

end or rant

PS I am not an agnostic or an atheist, more of a seeker...

to see an amendment to the Constitution clearly emphasizing a separation of church and state.

Doubt I'll ever get one.

If you are a seeker, post in our DU S.O.U.P.S. group (Seekers on Unique Paths of Spirituality)!

(Maybe you do already.)

the separation of Church and state happened for example very late in Sweden (1999). But it was applied in reality far long ago. Some immigration issues and a fight about the endorsement of female priests in the State Church, pissed people of and the separation became a fact.

in the US I bet the damage caused by the actual government will create a terrain for that. But it won't happen before someone leads the fight.

A few good apples may come out here and there but if overall....you get the idea.

I also respect peoples' rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Beyond that, I think believing something without any reason to believe it is crazy. Not all crazy is bad, but crazy is crazy, and I call it like I see it. If my opinion offends someone, the end of the line is around the corner.

I'd say, "Go with God," but you probably wouldn't like that.


Hmmm ... enjoy your path!

And, if we ever meet face-to-face, keep your opinion of my being crazy to yourself - or I'm out of there!

Take care and peace,

Will you agree, then, to keep your opinion regarding a deity to yourself?

:shrug:

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

Which doesn't surprise me.

Try this: don't spew your god-talk* at me, I won't tell you I think god-talk is crazy.


*Or, if you prefer, "nonlocalized and not necessarily self-aware universal consciousness not treally a god at all but something I insist is present even though I can't adequately define it-talk"

:eyes:

they KNOW they have a faith, and often choose not to preach it, while you preach your beliefs all the time. IS there some God, some higher meaning? Nobody knows, thus its called "faith". If you preach that their faith is WRONG, rather than being tolerant and confessing your own ignorance, than you are PREACHING. Expect others to stop preaching when you do.

Um, do I know you? Are you following me around in the real world, taking notes on my conversations?

Or do you base your statement on an observation of my posts in threads related to religion? In which case... no shit. Yeah, I probably have a 100% track record of voicing my opinion when I'm voicing my opinion.

:eyes:

By "spiritual autism," do you mean a metaphorical condition, or are you suggesting that they have an invisible, undetectable essense that is functionally retarded, but with some outstanding genius-level ability?

and I know you don't like to talk about it - sure.

I'd have no reason to bring it up.

But if someone starts and R & T thread, I'll respond.

That's childish. At least I know how to get rid of you. ;)

;-)

No, we don't.

I highly suggest that every time we take note of a religious person on the left doing something good, especially if it undermines the fundamentalists that we should all try to offer our support and help them get out their message so others can join them.

No, because then we are guilty of the same sin as the right wingers. You have a right to inject your religion into your politics. You have absolutely no right to suggest that others without your faith prop your beliefs up because it might contribute to the common good. The separation of church and state is absolute. Right, left or otherwise you are free to practice your religion, you are not free to promote a subjective interpretation of religion as a political wedge.

Would you rather the Right dominate the discourse of Faith in America? That is what they are doing. They wake up every single day and do just that - winning thousands over to them everyday.

It's not like they actually disagree with any - at least not most of our goals. In the end it's also not like they will be able to gain a monopoly like the Religious Right has, but they most certainly will maintain an important balance.

Don't you think we need our own counters to the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwels of America? Also, they will inevitability be too busy fighting each other over tiny details of their variances in faith to gain any ground - allowing science, human rights, and all the things we value to press forward without their opposition.

In the end it's a win-win for the secular left and the religious left.

They wake up every single day and do just that - winning thousands over to them everyday.

That is not true at all. Even among people of faith, the majority of Americans believe in the total separation of church and state. Turn off Fox News. You're buying into the hype. It's a lose-lose situation to think undermining the Constitution in a way that will be slightly less egregious to your partisan viewpoint is a good thing.

duty to respond to their lies, regardless of the avenue they choose to deceive. The Bible is long and tedious. Most people of faith don't actually read it. Why on earth should we let the fascist bigots define the biblical message?

I just wish that the people of faith didn't feel it so necessary to try to push their belief systems off on me. I don't get ugly unless they do.

There are many people of faith who do not have any desire to proselytize.

So, I guess we would get along fine.

I just attack their faith itself!



Oh come on, you know you should have said it. ;)

I feel no obligation whatsoever to defend or proseletyze my faith. We each must follow our own path, by the lights we see by. The opinions voiced by others is all about them, not me. I'm open to feedback and information, not judgment or condemnation. I wouldn't have it any other way. :shrug:

I think that progressives should spend more time talking about what we have in common, and on working together towards common goals.

...and since I like you and respect your opinions, Meldread, I'd like your thoughts on working together politically with people of (other) faith(s):

What do you do when you have tried, repeatedly, to reach across to those whose belief systems demonize you (read: us, queers), only to have your entire philosophy trashed, and your entire existence diminished to "SINNER" simply because you're gay? Where does one finally draw the line, realize the old adage about "doing the same thing over and over = insanity" is true, and just give up?

No, not all people of faith are bad people. Some of my best friends, etc., etc.

BUT:

How can I respect people of faith who refuse to respect me?

How can I possibly try to work with such people?

How many hits for the team does one have to take before walking off the field, for good?

I'm keeping this as general as possible -- but as you can guess, I'm stinging, badly, right now, from a recent incident.

I certainly do not expect you to respect anyone who doesn't respect you.

But, as you said, there are many of us (people of faith) who attend welcoming, affirming, inclusive churches - whose pastors do NOT recite anti-GLBT dogma.

We are progressives who work hard out there in the community - for human rights.

Take care and peace,

The real problem is not Christians, per se. It's trying to find common ground with those who haven't quite got that "Judge not, lest ye be judged" thing down yet.

I want to clarify: The folks I think of as "real Christians" (nonjudgmental, non-prosletyzing liberals) aren't the ones I ever felt I needed to build bridges with.

I don't take genuinely progressive Christians for granted -- not by a long shot, as you're so few and far between! But I think there's an unspoken understanding between us: I'm confident you won't try to inject religion into politics, and you know that we're not forcing anybody to marry us in their church.

In other words, your Christianity and my sexuality are non-issues; we're each so secure in our own spaces, we don't see each other as a threat. That frees us up to work -- together -- on more urgent matters.

That's my take on it, anyway.

And... Thank you for joining PFLAG. I wish everyone would. :)

On edit: Stupid typos.

"What do you do when you have tried, repeatedly, to reach across to those whose belief systems demonize you (read: us, queers), only to have your entire philosophy trashed, and your entire existence diminished to "SINNER" simply because you're gay?"
We are, of course in the same boat. Most liberal people of faith aren't nearly as bad as those on the right. Granted, it's the same religion that's burned us time and again... but you have to see things for what they are. Eighty-Five Percent (that's 85%!!) of Americans confess to being Christians! We, at best estimates, make up 20% of the population. Throw in all of our hardcore allies and we might, just maybe, make it to 30%. Then subtract all the self-loathing LGBT people who are nothing but a hindrance to our causes, and we're back down to 25%. Keep in mind this is the highest figure possible, and a more realistic figure would be something around 15%. It may even be as low as 5%.

What would you suggest doing? We know full well not -all- of them are bad, just probably most of them. It's not like we can go and have a civil war against them and boot them from the country, and even if we could we'd be out numbered and out gunned.

The only feasible solution I see to the problem that we have is to use those who are most agreeable to our causes. Use them against our enemies and offer them up as a viable alternative. While our enemies are fighting with our Christian Allies we can further our goals while depleting the never ending war chest of the Fundamentalist Right.

In the mean time we can make a consorted effort - a strong one - to push for gay rights. We can erect bigger and better protections for the separation of church and state. We can take that old crumbling, rock pitted wall and replace it with a 40 foot thick titanium wall. Once the dust settles at worst there will be a balance of voices and opinions in America. At best religion as a whole becomes irrelevant to American life and society, eventually fading into obscurity and dying off.

"How can I respect people of faith who refuse to respect me?"
You don't have to actually respect them. Just be diplomatic, and no one said we had to bite our tongues. I certainly wouldn't encourage that. We shouldn't make the same mistake the Right made when they allowed the Religious Right take hold - keeping them in their place. The Religious Right walks all over the Republicans now. We need to define boundaries that should not be crossed right from the beginning.

"How can I possibly try to work with such people?"
By emphasizing the qualities you want them to show and deemphasizing the qualities you don't. Even the Religious Right knows how to moderate their tones. They all think like Fred Phelps, the difference is most of them know how to dress it up better. Also by not letting them lay claim to dominate us, but rather calling things an "equal partnership". Both sides are getting something out of it, both sides walk away with benefiting. It's just that in the long run we may end up benefiting more.

"How many hits for the team does one have to take before walking off the field, for good?"
We'll both be dead and gone two or three times over before things are finally settled. We're going to face discrimination and persecution for the rest of our lives - that's a fact. Bigotry isn't erased in a lifetime, it takes generations for that to happen. We can only find a way to start the process. So that future generations don't have to endure as we have.

"I'm keeping this as general as possible -- but as you can guess, I'm stinging, badly, right now, from a recent incident."
I live in Virginia. Because of Christians, I cannot even form a legal contract with a person of the same sex that is not from my family - straight or gay - without it falling into question. In my local Newspaper for the third week in a row on the opinion page someone has called or implied that Democrats are the servants of "Satan". They are the type of people who would welcome Fred Phelps as a hero and lift him up on their shoulders. I grew up here.

It has taken me years, and I still have not completely gotten over it, of all the evils they have inflicted upon me both emotionally and mentally. It may repulse some, but I feel nothing for them - if they should all die tomorrow I would be gleefully happy. They have made it quitr clear that people like us are not welcome here, and would be more than happy to take steps to remove us permanently. I once had an opinion piece printed in the paper, and my mailbox still gets knocked down occasionally almost two years later. Every time I've wanted to send something to the paper since then I've used a friend who lives in North Carolina. It's much harder for them to harass someone who lives an entire state away.

I know that seeing an opposition to their viewpoints by other Christians would drive them insane. It would push them over the edge and they would lunge at them like a mad and crazed animal. That's exactly what I am counting on them doing, and it will force Liberal Christians to take a stand and fight for what they believe in - not to silently sit by while the Religious Right hogs the megaphone. It is all about the enemy of my enemy is my friend. We have a common foe, there is no reason we should not work together and deal with that foe then work out our differences later.

we're supposed to work with people who are against me just because I'm a Christian? You don't know anything about me as a person, it's just a message board, and you already hate me before knowing me. :cry:

Not liberal Christians. I was talking about the fundies where I live. As far as I know I've never even personally met a liberal Christian in person with the exception of my mother. And even her "liberalness" is a bit of a stretch it's of the "live and let live" verity.

I most certainly was not expecting the hostile responses - my god (no pun intended), it's insane. Even *I* can behave myself around others most of the time, and half the folks responding against people of faith haven't even experienced the brunt of their oppression.

I can't be the only one who can see both sides having something to benefit from working together, can I? We both get something out of it, and both walk away with most of what we want.

*sigh* Not only to all of us but to the country. And they claim to love it so much eh?

but don't attack faith, which has been done here on DU recently.

I say "thank you." It's so hard when you have everyone bashing you and you feel like you don't belong anywhere. I'm a far left liberal but yet also a faithful Christian. I've been told I'm not a true Christian by those on the right and my faith slammed by those on the left. *sigh* I understand where my fellow lefties are coming from, I feel that frustration too, but it does hurt your feelings when you feel like you don't belong anywhere. :cry: