About the Religious debate going on:

I am sorry that some Christians/people of faith here on the board feel a bit persecuted; marginalized, insulted; etc. Yes; we are supposed to be a democratic and liberal board; with tolerance and sympathy for all. I have prided myself(maybe in error) on being tolerant and learning to be more so with interactions with more and varied people. I was raised Methodist. I fully believed and still do believe in the basic tenants of Christianity; respect for others and love and respect for life; peace and patience.

That being said; those who have lived their life in the faith do not have a CLUE what it's like to be "outside the fold" as it were. EVERYWHERE you go; EVERYONE assumes that you are Christian; and that you believe in the Bible and God; and that you think God is male; etc. etc. etc. AD INFINITUM.

EVERY
FRIGGIN
WHERE.

On TV. In the newspaper.In the grocery store. At the PTA. At school. Driving down the friggin' road. At the nightclub. At the concert. At the (!) mall. At the GAS STATION. In the movies. On. and ON. and ON. and ON. Hell; your family! (Mother in law wants to know why you are still "living in sin"; and when are you going to go to church? Why don't you say grace at the family dinner? What's WRONG with you? Oh; the tension.)

Do you UNDERSTAND how FRUSTRATING and STIFLING and HURTFUL and LIMITING and UPSETTING and IRRITATING and DEPRESSING it is to have this SHOVED IN YOUR FACE EVERY-FRIGGIN-WHERE YOU TURN?

Look; I'm sorry. You can practice your religion anywhere you want; anyhow you want. But, for most of us DU is the only place we have to come to release our frustrations of being marginalized not only for our religious beliefs; but for our political ones. If you haven't noticed; a large percentage of ppl who do NOT believe in organized religion and/or Christianity as such are ALSO liberals. We're now doubly damned and ridiculed. (Interesting pattern; but that's been discussed before). You have to understand something. Christianity in general has been manipulated for the last few thousand years into a political tool for crowd control, money making and repression. We know this; I'm sure you do too. It comes down to this: Christianity has owned the last couple thousand years; in the western world at least.

Now it's our turn.

You cannot blame us for wanting to express ourselves forcefully. Organized religion in general has been shoved down our throats for way too long.
You need to have some patience. We are just rebelling and trying to restore the balance.
Sorry; but I just think there is a bit too much whining. ("Waahhh!") It smacks of the Religious Right to many here.
I am not saying we should not be tolerant and reasonable (and polite!) I AM saying that you have to understand why there are some of us who are NOT. I personally am not trying to be;I'm just trying to help you understand. I AM very sorry if this is not clear.

I've started throwing it back in religionists' faces IRL. It's very freeing. I never start it, but I sure as hell will end it. ;)

LH

who never throw it in your face to begin with?

I don't think it is. I think that's what bothers people who have any kind of religious faith sometimes. They feel that they're being ridiculed and made to feel stupid, even when they never said or did anything to an atheist to try to make that person feel unaccepted.

but I can understand this from a viewpoint of those who follow minority religions. I know what Christians believe...I just don't buy it. And I'll never understand why they do.

I don't bash them, but I know why some people can't help themselves. Blame the GOP. It works for me.

out in a place where "Pastor" tells people to breathe in and out. Religion is a faith, not a law in the land. Unfortunately, too damned many people don't remember that.

go to some RW site and bitch. Take it out on the people who are really being unkind. I'm pastor of a progressive church, where a lesbian couple serve as Moderator and Chair of Trustees. I do gay marriages (well, I would, if anyone asked). I don't take the Bible literally. I'm an ordained woman.

Yet, here I'm treated as if I'm personally responsible for every piece of RW legislation, every anti-choice demonstration, every offensive thing done in the name of Christianity EVER.

I'm tired of being stereotyped, and treated according to taht stereotype.

There is this--the intolerance of atheism and agnsoticism, and their unwillingness to listen to reason, make those philosophies mighty damned unattractive to this Christian!

...but it's individual believers who can be intolerant, and not the belief system itself?

Nice double standard.

"I'm sick of being stereotyped, and by the way here is what I hate about all those atheists and agnostics..."

:eyes:

NT!

I am the product of a Christian upbringing and I still believe in those values.
I am what Tweety calls a "Sermon on the Mount" Democrat--and damn proud of it.

You are talking specifically of America, not the world, so you can't say "EVERYWHERE you go". It's not only bad English to use "you" instead of "one" here, it's patently wrong.

Also, faiths have "tenets", not "tenants". Landlords have "tenants". I only say that to let you know and to correct, not as part of me disagreeing with your basic thoughts. I'm not one of those who say "HA! You can't spell, your argument is therefore bullshit!"

That said, you are partially correct about America - many people (not ALL, as you so wrongfully posit; remember, a good portion of our country is Jewish and Muslim, as well as Buddhist, Sikh, Taoist, Hindu, and atheist) DO assume that one is Christian. I'm a Christian, and I at times find it annoying, especially when done by the fundy assholes who assume that I must be a "proper" (that is, "their kind") of Christian because I'm "nice" or mentioned God.

I totally understand the frustration of the atheists and/or non-Christians for the shitty encounters you have in this country.

But to blow up with ridiculous absolutes like you just did ("everywhere" and "everyone") is just immature, unhelpful, and ignorant, and does nothing helpful for atheists, Christians, or anyone of any faith or who chooses not to have a religious faith.

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1580452,00.html

Sadly, there is some truth in it, which is why it's funny, of course.

The tenets thing was a spellcheck correction. I obviously spelled it right the first time; and beleived I was wrong when spellcheck corrected it.

I thought that most ppl here would understand without my stating it that I was talking about America. This board adresses American politics more than world politics; so I thought that was a given. I feel you are nit-picking a bit here. If you expect me to cover all bases like that in every post; each of my posts are going to be quite long.

I'm not blowing up. You should see me blowing up This is not that at all. I am trying to convey how it FEELS to those of us who are not of the faith. It FEELS like EVERYONE and EVERYWHERE. Of course it isn't. Duh. I figured most ppl were smart enough to get that. My bad........

:)

K & R

syaing difference between ragging on religion and becoming personal.... ah wtf, i am a big girl, i can handle whatever is thrown my way. lol lol no conditions. i will jsut be patient. and this christian will often be on your side. i personally dont like anothers religion, like no birthcontrols, shoved down my throat either, not being a catholic

perhaps this is why our founding father's separated the two
because politics determined the story of Jesus to be told
and established themselves as the sole authority of their truth.
To be declared blasphemous for saying jesus had a girlfriend
is like being called a conspiracy theorist for questioning the elections.
I personally feel jesus was confronting power with truth then as we are doing now.

I don't come here to have my beliefs bashed

I don't bash others beliefs

so why the bashing?

This is just a place for you to vent your frustration with the Christians in your life?

If true, I feel sorry for you man.

You shouldn't be treated badly for being who you are.

But I shouldn't either.

And I won't stand down.

You shouldn't be treated badly for being who you are.

But I shouldn't either.


tis true... the ying and yang of it

my point exactly

I don't treat others badly for their beliefs

I want to be accepted as a dyed in the wool Democrat like anyone else would.

I happen to believe in God.

I don't usually mention that in a post, but tonight it is on my mind.

After the thread I started, and got thrashed about, I'm not pissed, I'm just not going to stand down either.

I am what I am, said Popeye (and me)

i mean kid bashing. who would want to bash kids. lo and behold, tons (ok maybe not tons) but more than i would guess of kid bahsers. smoker bashers, cell phone bashers, i pod user bashers,

we have lots of people that get to behave however they want with repercussion. but did you read my post on your previous post, because i am serious on that. i can really understand the anger to christians. cant you?

I grew up in Utah as a non Mormon

I live in the buckle of the bible belt

I am a liberal Christian

There are lots more like us, but I am surrounded by fundies

intolerant fundies

But I am not them

So yes, I understand anger towards religion, anger towards Christians.

But why should that make it okay to come to DU and compare my faith to fairy tales, Sasquatch, Santa Claus, etc.?

I didn't do it to them.

Specify fundies did this, or whoever did it. Not just blast all who have belief in God.

That's my point.

Lots of Americans believe in God. Lots of them are Democrats

If DU is just going to be tolerant of atheists and agnostics and make fun of belief in God, then there will be a lot of people turned off by DU. DU isn't the Democratic party, I understand that.

Peace

:-)

Conspiracy theories

"Alternative" medicine, quackery, and similar things

Scientology

Conservative Democrats

Are you worried about those people getting turned off by DU, too?

There is no evidence for Santa.

There is no evidence for gods.

There is no evidence for Sasquatch - well, there MIGHT be, which is more than the other two.

If you don't like people pointing out that the only 'evidence' for gods is subjective thoughts and feelings, well, I don't know what to say, except "sorry about that".

It's not bashing to point that out, and it's not attacking a believer for BEING a believer. There is no requirement that anyone respect your beliefs, only your right to hold them.

The apparent inability of many believers - even solid liberal ones! - to grasp that fact fuels these kinds of threads, and the ridiculous cries of persecution of believers often where there is none.

I'm an atheist. Your myths are not my beliefs. BUT I WILL NOT TREAT YOU BADLY BECAUSE YOU ARE A BELIEVER. If you can't accept that I have as much right to speak my mind on this issue as a believer does, well, tough, I guess. You'll either learn to live with it, put me on ignore, or go away.

I'd prefer you accept that we atheists have that right, of course, and that we can be civil with each other.

First; I hope you don't think that I am bashing. Feel free to pull ALL of my posts since I joined. You will find no such thing. I have no problem. I believe in tolerance and as much patience as can be mustered.

This is not a place for me to vent frustrations with Christians in my life. I don't; and for proof; please see the last paragraph again. But you have to realize that the Religious Right has made religion into politics; and then tried to shove the whole thing down all our throats. You're damn right I'm frustrated with the mixing of Church and State. It's unconstitutional. When someone tries to impose their lifestyle and beliefs on me; or ASSUMES that I share them; we definately have a problem. Like it or not; religion, and especially Christianity, is (for the moment) hopelessly entwined with our politics. Gotta deal with it where it's at. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

You really need to step back and look at the big picture. The big picture is why "we" (athiests; agnostics; pagans; et al) feel the need to push back so hard against the established religion. That should be self-explanitory; but I tried to explain it in the OP. I, personally, am never going to bash you for what you believe. Everyone has their own path and comes to their own truth in time; and you are exactly where you are supposed to be. But you have to understand; it is the nature of a people repressed to act out in anger and sometimes immaturity to the opressors; or those they VIEW as the opressors. That's just human nature. I think some Christians here should not be SUPRISED at the level of vitrol against them. I am NOT saying you should put up with it. Just UNDERSTAND it. Hello.

One must be willing to offer understanding to deserve it in return. If one acts like a jerk then, no matter how justified one is, one should not be surprised when one is treated like a jerk.

something is completely unsupported by empirical evidence does not mean it is an invalid belief.


NB. I was explaining his point of view, not espousing it.

P.S. Wanna flamewar? (Choose & state explicitly whether serious or comical)

As many Christians and other believers have noted, they don't give a rat's ass even if someone does call their beliefs a fairy tale. Others, like you, are deeply upset by it. I know this can get caught up in the deeply-ingrained Christian persecution complex, that you just have to feel attacked by someone to validate your faith. But please know that from this atheist's perspective, having your beliefs called a fairy tale on a message board seems like a pretty trivial thing, especially when in real life I can't be open about my atheism without facing repercussions on the job, in my family, and among many of my friends.

I can respect you, but I don't think I have to respect your beliefs.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Although here in Canada, religion is not so in-your-face as there. But I can relate to the "oh, I always assumed you believed in God" line.

I was brought up in an odd home. My parents made my sister and I go to Sunday school, but they never went to church themselves. One day, when I was about 14, I told my parents that i didn't want to go any more. I was astounded when they said "fine, you're old enough".

It never made sense to me all this "faith" in something I couldn't see, hear or touch. Or was ever likely to.

And I ALWAYS wondered that if there WAS a God, why did he only show himself to this small semi-nomadic culture on the Mediterranean?

Anyways, good post.

Every Christian needs to realize that they believe in magic, goblins, and superstition. There is no difference other than terminology between mainstream Christian beliefs and childhood superstitions like the tooth fairy and Kris Kringle. I can interact effectively with those who hold such beliefs but I find it impossible to fail to judge their cognitive abilities without accounting for such beliefs.

goblins, and superstition." That's the language that make Christians bristle. And why just Christians? Why not Muslims and Jews and Pagans and Wiccans and Buddhists and Animists, and Hindus?

But, this is the example of such posts that enrage those who hold religious beliefs dear, and this is what provokes argument. I just wanted to point out what I personally find a slight annoyance. I don't condescend to those who have differing beliefs, and I expect the same in return. This flies in the face of politesse.

Thats what a lot of damn christians don't get! You are judging every single other belief by believing that people who don't believe as you do are going to hell. If you've ever uttered the words "Jesus had died for your sins" around anyone who is not christian, you have insulted other people. The fact that you believe you are going to be saved, and all the other 4 billion people are the planet are going to burn in a lake of fire, but your nice to them and pat their head is condenscending.

But the thing is...I don't care. Good for you. Jesus is great blah blah blah. Muhammed is the only truth...blah blah blah. Voodoo Man is the only source for enlightenment blah blah blah. It makes no difference to me. I could care less. I've heard it all before...the only reason I'm probably still not insulted is because I hear that shit all the time.

What does it mean to respect anothers belief? Do you really respect others beliefs? What if I told you that I believe that Jesus is the same as Santa Claus? Thats my belief. But some people get upset that I hold that belief and tell me to shut up. They are not respecting my beliefs. Telling me to stop saying jesus is like Santa is like telling a Christian to stop saying Jesus was divine.

Here are my "beliefs":

There is no god.

Jesus is a myth like Santa.

Islam and Christianity and Judaism are violent religions.

Religion has no truth, its just the result of indoctrination.


Here are "a typical christians" belief:

There is a god

Mohammed wasn't really a prophet.

Atheists are going to hell.

Zeus is a myth like Santa.

I can't help that my beliefs insult others. Every one of us has a belief that insults others. Christians have beliefs that insult others. Hell, secularism is an insult to some religions...it doesn't mean we don't support it. And telling others to stop expressing their beliefs is intolerant.

I'm sorry...I'm not going to the back of the bus just because you find who I am insulting (and I'm not just telling you this Dorian...its for all the christians on this site). If you have a problem with something I say, argue with me. Debate me. Thats what this forum is for. But don't ever expect me to go to the back of the fucking bus.

I do not find who you are insulting or what you believe insulting. What I DO find insulting is being called stupid. Other than that, I hope for the best.

As for the theological idea of Hell, the Catholic Church doesn't presume to know that anybody is going to Hell. It is our responsibility to pray for everyone. The church also believes, as it is stated in the Cathecism of the Catholic Church, that God's Will is not fully known and that goodness can touch people in a multitude of faiths. It is our responsibility to inform our own conscience.

Beyond that, I don't proclaim or presume that anybody is going to Hell or Heaven. What the hell (no pun intended) do I know about that? And I've never ever ever ever uttered the words "Jesus has died for your sins," outside of my theology classes at Boston College (a Jesuit University), and even there, we discussed salvation, but never in those exact words. I've managed to be GREAT friends with people from a myriad of faiths in THE REAL WORLD, and I would never speak to any of them about damnation, nor would they ever accuse me of being insulting or belittling.

And my problem is not necessarily about beliefs insulting others. I know that you don't believe there is a God, and I have absolutely no issue with that. What I do have an issue with is when people say, "How could you be so foolish to believe in God?" It's RUDE! I don't like RUDENESS or CONDESCENSION. They annoy me! I would never ask you how you could be so foolish as to not believ in God. I don't presume that you are foolish. I presume that you are educated enough to make your own decision in the matter, and that you have spent a lot of time in introspection and evaluation of faith and the issues revolving around faith. JUST AS I HAVE!

There is nothing foolish or simple about the process of faith. It's complicated, and I presume that all adults have truly thought about the issues to arrive where they have. Perhaps I place too much respect in the process? I don't know. But, for someone to tell me that I just believe in fairy tales that I was taught as a child... well, they don't know the long and arduous process it took to get me where I am today. And that is just as insulting to a Christian as being told that you gave up on religion because of some negative association with it, regardless of your thought process.

There are ways to phrase things that are not insulting and there are ways to be insulting. If I say, "I believe there is no difference between Santa and Jesus"...thats my belief and I don't think its insulting. If I say.."go talk to your imaginary friend", then maybe it is. I respect most people..in fact, most people dont have to EARN my respect, they are automatically awarded my respect until they show me they dont deserve it. But, in truth, I dont respect religion. I think that conservatives are wrong about tax cuts. If someone believes in Reagonomics, I tell them they are full of shit. I still respect them, but I don't respect their economic beliefs. Religion is the same thing for me. I respect the believer, but I don't respect the belief. I don't.

However, I will stop saying the santa claus stuff unless I'm provoked. Sometimes its hard for me to understand how people get so insulted. I guess its because, lacking in belief, I have not identifyed with some belief so much that an attack on the belief becomes an attack on me. If someone tells me my economic beliefs are unrealistic or silly, I don't ever get mad. Its weird to me that people get insulted if I said, "The Muslim religion is violent" or"Christianity is a load of bullshit"...because I'm really not attacking a person at all.

I also think that people have differnt desires here. Some are more argumentative, while others are more about fellowship. I come here primarily to read tons of topics, and I voice my opinion only when something seems sort of provocative. :)

I don't disrespect your beliefs that religion is a fallacy, though. Just as you think I am wrong, I think you are wrong. Big deal!

Religion, however, gets nasty (as political belief can, at times) because so many people wrap up themselves in it. When you identify as a Catholic, it's difficult to hear that being ridiculed. Hell, that's why there is so much hatred in Northern Ireland. And, how different are the Protestants up there than the Catholics, really? (I assume that most of them are Presbyterian (Scottish influence) or Anglican (English influence), and most of them identify as Paddies or Protties culturally rather than spiritually.

Religious fervor IS dangerous. I admit that.

And now, I've said all I can on this topic! Peace! :)

I rail against the megachurches and the uber-right wing "reverends" like Falwell and Dobson all the time.

This doesn't mean I have anything against Christians.

I was raised Christian, myself.

I just think that the Falwells of the world are the anti-christs and false-prophets the REAL Christians should be afraid of, and I'm not going to let them lie to us without opposition.

There's a reason they hide in the shadows and work behind the scenes.

"If you'd come today
You could have reached the whole nation
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication"

And Jesus didn't rake in millions of tax-free dollars in his megachurches to use to "render Caesar".

I blame you for your emotionalism. You're not helping anything.

I'm not religious, or a believer, but I don't feel any need to vent my spleen over inequities in representation of belief. NO ONE seems to believe what I believe. So what?

Perhaps more important is the fact that not all believers in God are as sanctimonious as the fundy types. In fact, I'd venture to say that few, if any, of DUers are of that holier-than-thou variety. So coming here and justifying disrespect, or implying every believer is as sanctimonious as the next is clearly stereotyping and discriminatory behavior.

Specifically to the atheists: No single believer's actions are representative of God or religion as a whole. All the accumulated evils committed in the name of religion throughout history are not representative of a spiritual worldview.

I am of no certain belief system, but I do have my own beliefs. I have never really felt that anyone was shoving their religion or lack there of in my face. Granted there is a lot of different people pushing their agenda, but that goes for all different beliefs and not just Christians.

I came to the conclusion years ago that everyone needs to have something to believe in even if that something is nothing. Everyone has to get where they are going somehow and who am I to get pissed off at the way they do it. Sure there are some people who go too far, but it is one thing to say "God bless you" after I sneeze and people who blow up abortion clinics because god told them to.

It is easy to blame followers of a belief because there are some people who are fanatics about it, but I think it is wrong to put all people of a general belief into one category. I have no problem speaking out against people who use their religion (or non-religion) to hurt other people, but I personally think it is just as wrong to generalize and put everyone of that belief in the same category.

I know people who are Buddhists, Christians, Agnostic, Atheist, Wiccan, Pagan, I don't really care and hodge-podge and they are all great people. I am somewhere in between all of them and as I said, I don't feel it is "FRUSTRATING and STIFLING and HURTFUL and LIMITING and UPSETTING and IRRITATING and DEPRESSING it is to have this SHOVED IN YOUR FACE EVERY-FRIGGIN-WHERE YOU TURN?"

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's not easy feeling like an outcast or a minority out there in the world. I'm glad you've found a place where you find comfort. And, I certainly do not have a problem with anything you said in this post.

As long as you are civil and respectful or my beliefs, I will be the same for yours. And outside of my faith and your atheism, we probably have a lot in common.

Any Society organized itself in ways to unite people together. Even in the most tolerate Society of today and the past, people where pressured into conforming. The reason for this is people want to belong to something bigger and more untied than themselves (and what I mean by this is Society itself NOT any particular Belief System).

The more people have in Common, the more united is their outlook and the less stress within the society. Thus we are compelled by our peers to conform. For example we speak the same language. You do have accents as you move around the Country but it is still the same language. Accents show another point, if we move into an area we slowly adopt the accent of that area (women do this quicker than men). It is part of that subconscious need to belong (and may be hard wired within us for people are SOCIAL Animals).

As to religion, all societies try to get people to confirm to the dominate religion of their society. Some times this is backed by the Government (The theocracies) sometime such conformity is social only with little pressure from the state and Religion in General (For example Europe which technically is NOT as religious as the US, but the basic concept of Christianity are still there, through few people go to church compared to the US).

Europe has NEVER liked what we in the US call Fundamentalist, even when Europe was run by State Churches, thus the Fundamentalist are bigger in the US than their are in Europe (and the Fundamentalists are bigger in the American South than the rest of the Country). Thus the South's Society tends to try to incorporate Fundamentalist beliefs into their Society while the rest of the Country tolerates the Fundamentalists but try to get them to accept modern Puritanism (Which dominates the rest of the Country).

Modern Puritanisms is more a belief in hard work, Charity, just pay and a just society than what a lot of people in this forum would call Puritanism (and I am NOT stating a belief in God, for while proper Puritanism requires such a belief, our society in the form of Modern Puritanism does not). The reason for the Confusion between Puritanism and Fundamentalism is first we do not teach religion in School (Something many European Countries do more to have their Citizens understand Religion more than to advocate religion). Second, the Fundamentalists like citing old Puritans (out of Context in most cases) for their Fundamentalist beliefs. Thus the confusion for what most people call Puritanism would have been rejected by the Puritans for it is Fundamentalism NOT Puritanism. Furthermore the dominate "religion" in the US outside of the American South is what I call "Modern Puritanism" i.e. belief is support of one's family, support the Country, Charity to the poor and less fortunate, and Government aid for the less fortunate.

Now this dominate Religion tries to get people to conform to its standard and people try to conform to its standards. Easter is more a family get together and Spring celebration than it is about Christ's Resurrection. Christmas is more a celebration of Family, lights and gift giving than it is a celebration of Christ's Birth. Thanksgiving is a celebration of Family than it is anything else. Yes during most of the holidays people are concern with their relation within their families and in many ways the extended family more than the nuclear family. This brings religion back into the situation, for most families try to stay together and to a limit extent try to appease one another (Thus a big push to conform during such celebrations).

The dominate Religion of the US is Christianity (Either in its Puritan or Fundamentalist version). Our Society wants its member to be united as much as possible and thus will pressure people to conform. Now the State (and by the State I mean your local Government, your State Government and the Federal Government) will NOT force conformity unless the failure to conform causes harms to the Society, but that does NOT prevent your relatives and Friends to make you conform through their comradeship and your need to belong to something (People are social Animals we MUST belong to something, we are NOT lone wolves).

Thus my point is if you do NOT want to belong to our Society (that is the US as a whole) you do NOT need to conform, but you are Human as are the people around you and as such both them and you want to have some social interaction. That Social Interaction has to be based on something we all have in Common. Thus the dominate Religious beliefs keep coming back for it is the one thing most people have in common. Thus you can not avoid it, for modern Puritanism is deep within our Society and it is one of the things we all sooner or later learn, at the most basic level, so we can interact with other members of Society.

...New Englanders have different senses of what the State should do for the less-fortunate than do the states settled by Southern Protestants. The whole struggle plays out in Ohio, where the old dominate city, Cincinnati, was settled by Virginians, and the second dominate city, Cleveland, was established by Connecticutans and henceforth settled by Pennsylvania Germans and some other, similar ethnic groups.

There are only a few people in Northern Ohio who routinely work their religion into daily conversation. I would invite the original poster to settle here, but there is a lack of jobs.

Thus in the Mid-west (Pittsburgh to Minneapolis) people want to work together and avoid issues that are divisive (Unless it is something that HAS to be addressed and even then avoided till a choice has to be made). This is med-western conformity at work, we can discuss religion and even try to get be to convert PROVIDING that the discussion is NOT divisive, once it is formed to be divisive we change the subject. Thus real radical thinking does NOT happen in the Mid-west. The Anti-war movement was more an East and West Coast Protests until most of the Country turned against the War then the Mid-West joined in (Thus Kent State happened in 1970 two years after most Americans had turned against the War). The Desegregation movement was more a southern movement (as was its opposition) than any movement in the Midwest (Either way). Pittsburgh did have its Riot after Martin Luther King's Death, but it was contained in the Black areas of Pittsburgh and both the Police and National Guard just kept the problem contained and left the Black-leadership calmed their fellow blacks down (My Sister was going to Collage and on the bus going from Downtown to Oakland you saw National Guardsmen on the Road keeping the rioters contained AND leaving the black leaders in and out in the black leaderships attempts to clam the fellow blacks down (i.e VERY few confrontations between the Rioters and the National Guardsmen except if the rioters tried to get out of the black areas).

My point here is Religion is everywhere in the Mid-west, churches in every neighborhood, but if you want to avoid religion the people of the mid-west will oblige you. The people do NOT want to drive anyone away if at all possible (With limits such as they do not want KNOWN Violent Criminals around them). I have talked religion with people in the Mid-west and they will talk about it if it is NOT divisive (For example celebrating Jewish Holidays or even Moslem Holidays and why these Holidays exist). People of the Mid-West will talk about the different religions and WHY they are different almost on a philosophical basis (i.e. like comparing Democrats with Republicans). At the same time if the problem gets uncomfortable with someone in the group or a person seems NOT to want to join in on the conversation, people of the Mid-West will shift the subject to something less divisive.

Getting the Community to work as a Community requires everyone in the Community to be comfortable within the Community. This is again the Puritan outlook, the need to be ONE COMMUNITY. You are to help that community even if it means you should avoid a topic you are interested in (such as Religion or Politics) if such discussion is divisive as to the Community as a hole. This also requires people to conform to most of the standards of the Community (i.e. celebrating the "Standard" Family Holidays with all their historical religious baggage).

Thus there is NO dispute between these two positions, it is still the Puritan idea of the City on the Hill everyone in the community is to help work to. This is the Chief difference between the Mid_West and the South, the South also want to have everyone united as a group but has no sense of Community like the Puritans. Thus you get more talk of being "individuals" down south, but people are Communal Animals and need some sort of Social Interaction. Thus the South having a lesser sense of Community tend to opt for the community of Individuals relationship with God and other people, Fundamentalism. Instead of working with others to a common goal, Fundamentalist read the Bible themselves and come up with their own "Answers" to the problem of being a Social Creature and how to set up their Society. The problem is any society needs something central to its community, in the Mid-west it is the concept of working together for the common good, in the South it is everyone being on their own. Thus the South problem of what is the center of their Society? Prior to WWII this position was held by the old Southern landed Aristocracy, but with mechanization of Southern Plantations (and the movement of these landowners to live someplace else) AND the industrialization of the South there was a vacuum in the center. Progressive fundamentalist (Like William Jennings Bryan) had been the opposition to the old Aristocracy for decades, but starting with the 1920s the Southern Aristocracy decided to undermine these progressive fundamentalists by first providing aid to pro-segregationist fundamentalist, the Klan etc. This continued throughout the 1950s and 1960s until you have very few progressive fundamentalist preachers left in the South (and most of them in small congregations with NO Radio or Television access). Thus the Southern Landed Aristocracy was able to stay in power in the South by replacing themselves with these Right wing Fundamentalists Preachers. Thus today these preachers are the center of Gravity for most of the South. These fundamentalist Preachers are the Center of Southern Society (Unlike the mid-West where the center is the Community itself). Since the Center is Fundamentalist Christian, the Society itself MUST also express and protect that center, thus the much more radical and expressive use of Christianity in the American South.

Yes I would like to get the above down to a few sentences, but even the above is to much a simplifications of the situation. America is not split every on the Mason-Dixon line,one side Puritans, the other side Fundamentalists. The mix is deep, but the pull of each is also strong. You can write books on this subject and NOT get into ALL of complications, but the above is a good outline of the problem of why the South tend to wear their religion on their Sleeve, while the rest of the Country, while religious, tend to just follow the tenets of their religion.

One Last Note, some of my responses (including this one and the one you cited) were written on the fly, a product of what I have read and seen NOT extensive research and really only through out as I was tying this into the computer. What I mean by this is sometime you can have an idea about a subject AND not fix it until you try to put it down on paper to express to other people. Most people do NOT think about WHY they do things,they just do them (Thus why people in the Mid_west tend to avoid divisive issues). The same with my writing on this subject, it is NOT something I would normally think about, but once I started to Write the subject tended to write itself. This is often good, but it also mean I have NOT had time to check on every little part of this subject and sometime I run off on tangents others may find not relevant. Will this be the last word on this subject? No, but it is the best I can do TODAY on this subject which is difficult even if I would spend years doing the needed research to do a problem analysis of the problem.

There's a perspective that I very rarely see addressed in these threads. Part of the problem is that the debate generally gets cast as one between Christians and atheists. And face it -- an atheist is the last person you'd really want arguing your side in a debate about religion.

What I see as the crucial fact is that the greater part of reality is not only unknown to us but probably unknowable. Despite our inability to know it, that larger reality still impinges on us. It affects our lives and, even more important, it affects the way we ought to live.

To try to give ourselves some handle on the unknown and the unknowable, we make up stories about them. Those are the stories we call myths. They aren't true -- after all, we make them up ourselves about things of which we are completely ignorant. They aren't even half-true, like the stories we might tell about our friends and neighbors or about the adventures of our great-great-grandparents.

That doesn't mean they aren't valuable. At the very least, they remind us that the universe is far larger than we know, and that we ourselves are a very small part of it. But the greatest myths seem to go at least a little ways beyond that and offer us the opportunity to catch some fleeting intimation of a cosmos ruled by purpose and beauty and love far beyond the contradictions and contentions of our everyday lives.

All the great myths do this -- the sacred stories of every religion. None of them are true, but all of them are deeply meaningful. Even the petty myths -- fairy tales or stories about Santa Claus -- do it to a more minor degree.

Now, my problem with 'Christians,' as I said at the start, is that they have no respect for myth. They see no value in the myths of other cultures. They use 'fairy tale' as a derogatory epithet. And they insist that their own central myth -- which is certainly as full of beauty and meaning as any -- is not a myth at all, but a true story about things that happened and were written down as history in the days of our ancestors.

That violates my understanding of myth. It violates my understanding of the nature of reality. It violates my understanding of the meaning of human existence. I find it just plain wrong in so many ways that it's difficult to find the words to describe it -- although terms like 'blasphemous,' 'sacriligious,' and 'idolatrous' do come to mind.

What is more, these 'Christians' not only insist on their profoundly anti-religious misreading of the nature of myth, they also insist that everyone around them respect that misreading. They bully others into playing along with their distortions of reality and go all huffy if you try to suggest ever so gently that their central myth is not some unique mix of history and supernatural revelation but is just a made-up fairy tale like any other.

I would like to see evidence that there are true Christians around, who recognize that their religion consists of a Myth and a Way, and that following the Way of Jesus is an excellent path but not a privileged one. But if there are any, they seem too scared to ever say peep to the literalists whose abiding sin is confusing myth with reality.

as "not true." I believe they are indeed true, not by the standard of corporeal proof but certainly true in the great subconscious way that myth is created by a people over generations of trial-and-error living. And that's the very "truth" that so many science-bound people just can't deal with. A pity, really, because they're missing much of the richness of life.

And might I say...BOOYA!

Sorry, I just haven't gotten to say that since 1994.

I'm tired of religion. There, I said it. I'm tired of those who claim to have inside information as to the nature of the universe to which the rest of us aren't privvy...or don't believe. I'm tired of those who pretend that they're somehow better because they think some higher power has revealed to them (or us) the truth behind the illusion.

Fuck that.

We can't expect some higher power to come down and fix all the things we've broken. The reason our world and lives are fucked up is because WE humans fucked them up. And we were given (by nature or some mysterious creator) the brains, talent, and manipulative tools to fix a lot of them. If we can set aside our greed and lust for power long enough to bother. Disease? We can take care of that. Hunger? Ditto.

If we stop arguing about whose God is better and what country supposedly deserves his favor the most.

We have the tools, the intelligence, and the talent. We just don't have the drive.

We hand our power over to a bunch of fools who think there's some transcendent spirit that's going to come down and wave his hand and fix everything and then wonder why the world continues to be fucked up.

Stupid.

I know I'm supposed to give lip service to other peoples' beliefs and, for the most part, I do. I DO respect those who understand that this is our world and we're responsible for the welfare of our fellow humans. Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, and god knows how many other "prophets" have said so. And some of their followers listen and understand. Good for them. The ones who don't are the ones that raise my ire.

God's not going to fix everything. As long as we allow these dickheads to act as though that's what they expect, they're going to stumble around like a drunk troll in a glassmaker's shop, busting things and expecting someone off-stage to fix it all.

But you can't blame infant cancer on God. You can't expect him to wave his hand and fix it. All these exist because they're OUR problems. Even if some deity exists, all of our troubles are just that...OUR troubles. We were given the tools we have to fix them ourselves.

Science shouldn't be used to find better and more efficient ways to kill one another. That's NOT what it's for. We're not given the tools and talent to allow some folks to make obscene profits and live in houses so large that they have to hire dozens of servants just to clean them.

People can only LIVE in one house, and drive one automobile at a time. Why should some folks have ten cars and five houses, while some people sleep in cardboard boxes in alleys and under bridges? Because "God" likes it that way?

Nonsense. It's because we are entirely missing the point.

We can fix all of this, as long as we understand that it's OUR job. Taking care of one another...not trying to acquire as much shit as we can before we die.

Our troubles are human troubles, caused by human mistakes, and fixable by human ingenuity. I truly believe that.

And before you ask...I'm not an atheist, or even truly agnostic. I'm a pantheist/humanist. Or humanist/pantheist. I think the universe is a wonderous place, and possibly the only thing that deserves to be recognized as God. But, if this is indeed the case, each and every one of us, and every creature that walks, crawls, or swims, and even the trees through which the wind is blowing right now, and the wind itself, are ALL part of God and are therefore sacred.

"That which you do to the least of these" and all that.

"God" is too big a concept for anyone to have a handle on. Bible or no. Koran or no.

Science is what we call the act of trying to understand God. It's slow, and sometimes confusing. But it seeks to understand. It questions. It reveals. It learns. It grows.

Carl Sagan, in his book Contact, suggested a little something I found very intriguing. Maybe WE (intelligent beings) exist in order to someday explain God to itself.

For, as far as we know, and as far as we can prove, WE are the minds and hands of God. Not just us, but anything out there in the great unknown that can also think and build.

If this is the case, we've been mighty irresponsible deities, haven't we?

I'd been thinking about what I posted last night, and about the power of the Christian myth of incarnation if you take it metaphorically rather than literally. And then I read your post about pantheism/humanism and having to deal with out problems on our own -- and something struck me.

Let us suppose -- as a metaphor, at any rate, since truth is unknowable -- that the entire material universe is a god incarnate.

At the very least, that would demand a considerable degree of respect for material beings and processes -- a respect that most body-hating, nature-fearing Christian fundamentalists lack.

But it goes further. As my son said the other day in complaining about the Narnia movie, takebacks invalidate the meaning of sacrifice. If you're a god who's going to pour your essence into materiality, you have to do it all the way. You can't do it short-term, and you can't keep a transcendent toehold somewhere outside and above it all. You have to transform yourself into materiality entirely and permanently, with all the limitations and pain that involves.

That's the idea that really ought to be at the heart of Christianity -- without the get-out-of-jail-free cards. No reservations. No takebacks. No special exemptions. Be in it for the long haul and with whatever it takes.

However, if a god is entirely poured into materiality with no transcendent residue to stand outside and jigger the machinery, then what you get is just us. Us poor, fragile material beings, with our limited knowledge and inadequate skills are as good as it gets. The responsibility is on us to solve our own problems, upgrade our own capacities -- and maybe in doing so to become a little more godlike.

Because, to borrow another Christian metaphor, what it's really all about is the alpha and omega of things. God as the starting point, god as the destination -- but in between just the long, slow slog of evolution to get from here to there.

Evolution -- the idea the fundies can't abide because it cancels their hope of opting out of the process early -- is really the key. It's what connects the materiality that binds us with the godhead straining to manifest within us.

On one level, this way of looking at things is indistinguishable from total atheism and materialism -- because it sees no higher power outside us and no realm of 'spirit' as distinct from matter. But on another level, it is more Christian than Christianity -- because it turns the entire history of the universe, of life on earth, and of humanity into one ongoing passion play.

And that's just what comes out of unpacking one particular religious metaphor. It's amazing what treasures are hidden in religion once you stop taking it literally (whether to defend or attack) and start thinking about what it might really mean.

Very well said.

Help thy neighbor as in helping those in need. Actually there are alot of passages where poor are actually being helped by emissaries of the Lord. So, I have no problem with those Christian groups who respect that. And plenty of them are not in favor of the Republican party.

It's the mega churches with the multi-millionaire preachers and the multi-millionaire faith healers which I find disturbing. They sit in crystal palaces while their flock spends all their money on thinking that they will go to heaven and that will make up for the fact that they can't help their families and friends or touch their relatives when they are dead, just be content that they will someday meet with their relatives in heaven. And in the meantime they can enjoy cookies and ice cream.

As well as the churches which are anti-divorce and the members of those churches who would like to choose to be divorced and don't want to be condemned to eternal hell fire if they get divorced and don't understand that their money is being used to ensure that people fear divorce and stay miserable and wind up going postal on their spouses. If you touch yourself you'll be condemned to eternal hell fire. Twisted.

I myself am very happily married!!!!

It's just that I don't understand the concept of mass extinction including probably thousands of species overtime (Ice ages, etc..) as being a good thing done by a loving God vs. a God who just sat back and let the Devil have his due so that there can be a world with Good and Bad. Seems pretty weak.

... there is one observation I have to make.

Let me quote lildreamer316's recent post here: "That being said; those who have lived their life in the faith do not have a CLUE what it's like to be "outside the fold" as it were. EVERYWHERE you go; EVERYONE assumes that you are Christian; and that you believe in the Bible and God; and that you think God is male; etc. etc. etc. AD INFINITUM."

I was raised as a Unitarian Universalist, and I have to say that growing up I NEVER saw my religious beliefs being spread in American pop culture. I was raised to believe in celebrating human diversity, that all faiths ultimately spoke of the same truths, that Hell was a petty revenge fantasy invention of mankind, that the Bible wasn't written "by God" any more than the phone book was, and a lot of other things that "mainstream" America considers simply awful.

I won't eat up a lot of bandwidth discussing my current religious beliefs. (You can go to my personal blog page on the subject if you want, http://godhatesrepublicans.org/featured/article2.html ) But rest assured, they aren't being reinforced in Shrub's "Jesusland" America any more than the beliefs of the average pagan, wiccan, atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Baha'i, Sikh, Humanist, Transhumanist or Buddhist.

Yes, I know that much of DU has a knee-jerk anti-Christian bias because for the last 30 years the Republicans, oligarchs and plutocrats have falsely cloaked themselves as "the Real Christians."

Well, some of us are out there trying to knock these hypocritical scum off their pedestals, so LIGHTEN UP on us. The way some of you carry on, I think that you'd have rejected Martin Luther King, Jimmy Carter and FDR himself for being "preachy."

The point we're making when we post here is that our philosophy has been co-opted by the very people our movement's founder was speaking out against. We're not saying that to convert those of you who are pagan, wiccan, atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Baha'i, Sikh, Humanist, Transhumanist or Buddhist.

Heck, I spend most of my time trying to convert Southern Baptists, neo-Conservatives, NASCAR dads and soccer moms to my way of thinking about the world. I just don't have time to convert people who're already on the right path to begin with. (That's most of you folks.) As the parable of the Good Samaritan points out, it isn't WHAT YOU CALL YOURSELF that matters, IT'S WHAT YOU DO.

I just find it irritating that so many evil scum CALL themselves the same religion I do. That's why I try to clarify the point whenever someone lumps me in with GWBush, just as the average Wiccan tries to clarify it when they get lumped in with The Wicked Witch of the West. Follow me?

For more on this, see my recent post at http://godhatesrepublicans.org/sermons/sermonfive.html.

Now if Christian Democrats truly aren't welcome here, we'll pack up and go, and wish you all good luck. But keep in mind that we're going into the "Heretic Concentration Camps" right along with you if the Republican False Christians turn America into a theocracy. My favorite theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer was executed by the Nazis along with everyone else who disagreed with their philosophy.

For what it's worth, any Democrats of any faith or no faith are welcome at my message board, http://ghr.hyperboards.com/index.cgi. See you there!

Well, if DU had any sort of real influence on actual politics, especially the Democratic Party, then Howard Dean would be President and Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the gang would be in chains rotting somewhere.

You'll pack up and go WHERE? You do realize that you RUN the real Democratic Party, right? The party whose members in the Senate all stood up hand-in-hand with the Republicans to chant "One nation *UNDER GOD*" on the Capitol Steps with "Onward Christian Soldiers" playing in the background?

This is the Democratic UNDERGROUND. You'll see lots of unpolished stuff floating around. Especially from people who don't generally get a voice, even within the Party. These threats of "How do you expect to win without us Christians" are so hollow it's laughable. We're not winning with you running everything and nominating only religious candidates, are we?

Just as you feel left out when "mainstream" democrats cave in over and over again to the Repugs, I feel left out every time someone lumps me in with the Fundies. My sort hasn't had a say in public discourse since Walter Rauchenbach died in 1920-something.

If my strain of Christianity had any pull, Falwell and Robertson would be night mangers at Wal-Mart and GWBush would be commissioner of baseball.

Read Jim Wallis's latest book, and see if he's better at making this point that I apparently am.

Is it orthodox Jews? Whackjob atheists? Hare Krishnas?

Or is it liberal-to-moderate CHRISTIANS?

Don't give me that line about not controlling anything. Unless you want to say the fundies run BOTH parties?

And Jim Wallis creeps me out. He's the kind of liberal Christian that gives the impression he'd be A-OK with a theocracy, as long as it's a "liberal" one.

:yourock: :applause: :woohoo:

but I agree with you wholeheartedly. I run into some of the same because I don't believe exactly the same as other's 'round these here parts (Texas), and overall I think organized religion is a bad thing, because throught time it has done nothing but breed violence, hatred, bigotry, and exclusion. Religion should be between one's self, and whatever higher being the wish, or none at all.

I completely agree with the general assumption that one is Christian if living in America. I experience that daily in every venue. Christianity as the presumed norm reminds me a bit of heterosexism. Adults are assumed to be heterosexual unless they themselves reveal otherwise. I am assumed to be Christian and it is up to me to reveal whether I am or not. And depending upon the situation or environment it can be touchy or risky for me to acknowledge that I am not.

Like sexuality, religious beliefs cannot be assumed by a person's features. Neither is it necessarily anyone else's business. Whether I am gay or straight, Christian or non-Christian 999 times out of 1000 has absolutely no bearing on what I am engaging in at the time. I'd prefer people not make assumptions period. It shouldn't matter!

Now, religious beliefs are a matter of choice and sexuality is not. That's what makes the analogy so weak. But as a non-Christian perhaps this is why I feel compelled to advocate so strongly for gay rights. Christianism/heterosexism prevails and the onus is on the individual to reveal minority status. It's a very oppressive feeling, especially when the reaction is either unpredictable or likely to be quite negative.

My main concern with your post is this, "Christianity has owned the last couple thousand years; in the western world at least. Now it's our turn." I cannot agree. I don't think it is any particular group's turn to dominate world thought or beliefs.

I'm don't think religious beliefs are much of a choice. I mean, the very fact that if you are born to Christian parents there's very little chance you'll be a Muslim kind of shoots any theory of "choice" on religion out the window.

Plus for myself and many atheists, we feel we had no choice BUT to reject the myths. I couldn't choose to believe in a god any more than I could choose to step outside, flap my arms, and fly.

So your analogy is pretty spot-on. Plus non-Christians and homosexuals are usually hated by the same people, so we've got that in common too. :)

Beliefs have to do with what rings true for an individual and what does not. The teachings of Jesus ring true to me, so strongly that I believe him to be different in some ontological way from others. My ex-husband's remarkably intolerant UU friends, and all of their insults to my faith and my intelligence, gould not move me from these feelings. My Evangelical friends, and all of their prayers and mini-sermons, haven't been able to move me from my progressive expression of the Christian faith.

I think there is something innate in the faith traditions that speak to us and those that do not. Given this, I treat those of other faiths with respect. I expect the same from others.

Critters
"too bright to be Christian" according to a UU
(who expected me to thank him)

If you had been born in Saudi Arabia, do you think that the teachings of Jesus would ring as true to you? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, you would find what the prophet Muhammad said to be most true?

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

or Buddhism??

Try those. They don't require a belief in a god-man. Makes them more relevant, in my opinion.

I've considered those, in fact. Jainism would be difficult to live in this culture. I know this at close hand. I've supervised two volunteers who were Jain, and saw the challenges of living their values in this culture.

As to the god-man thing, that's your issue, doesn't bother me. I like the idea of the divine stepping into the world. Perfectly relevant to me.

I like Buddhism, too. But it's not active enough for me. A guy sitting under a tree for years meditating strikes me as less relevant than a rabbi actively engaging with his culture.

Chacun a son gout.

Namely, branding an entire religion based on the actions or beliefs of a few.

You will find that most Muslims believe their religion is a peaceful one. There are parts of the koran that are violent and call for violence against non-believers, but there are parts of the bible that do too, and you seem to ignore those pretty well. Don't you think Muslims can do the same thing?

Think about it.

I didn't say Islam is not a peaceful religion. I said it lacks the pacifist teaching that Jesus offers. And it does. While it does not allow for the starting of conflict, it doesn't go to the lengths that Jesus' teachings do to confront conflict---again, there's no "turn the other cheek". There isn't. Islam is not pacifist to the extent that Jesus' teachings (or those of the Buddha, for that matter) are. Your getting all pissy doesn't make it so.

You really were just looking for a fight, weren't you?

Yikes. So defensive about how superior your religion is. Fine, go enjoy it. I just wanted to get you to think about how your upbringing played a primary role in the religion you supposedly "chose."

What pissed you off is that I didn't come to the conclusion you wanted me to. Islam is not a pacifist religion. Thus, it doesn't speak to me. Sorry to disappoint.

I just don't see how you feel justified in making such a blanket statement.

Christianity has more that its share of violent nuts, in fact much more of its history is marked by violence rather than peace. Yet if I started off a thread saying "Christianity is not a pacifist religion," I'd be roasted.

Like I said, enjoy the superiority of your religion. (And be sure to ignore all the stuff you don't like.)

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

I kinda thought that was something your Jesus fellow cautioned against, but oh well, you apparently are much more in tune with what he really meant than any other Christian that ever existed.

Kind of rare to encounter such self-righteousness on a liberal message board, but DU has always surprised me.

By the way, you might want to read about Sufism sometime.

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

Actually I grew up in the liberal ELCA. I'm amazed at just how well you are fitting the profile of the judgmental fundie! Islam is violent, I was a former fundie, just full of pronouncements, aren't you?

What is its position on glbt issues?

Haven't considered myself a Christian for almost 20 years. Don't keep up with the bickering over who is closer to Jesus. Though I guess I should have just sought you out, and that would have settled the issue.

I do know in comparing the dogma I grew up with, with what passes for many Protestant sects today, it was definitely on the liberal side of things. Gay rights, gay marriage, just weren't an issue when I was in confirmation. Sorry.

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

opposes gay marriage and gay ordination, as a rule. They will allow local bishops to make exceptions, but would rather they didn't. Not as bad as most denominations, but not really liberal, either.

Despite your desperate attempts, it's clear that the ECLA is not a "fundie" church, as you originally assumed I must have grown up in.

Just admit your error, mmmkay?

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

Armchair psychoanalysis aside, I care because of the intolerant Christians I run across. They're a lot more common on a liberal political board than I had expected. I post to confront their bigotry, and get rid of the poison in religion.

Many say this is the heart of Sufism, and it does, indeed, come from a Hadith. To give you an idea how a Sufi will use the Qur'an as his guide, I would like to quote from the introduction to the book "Essential Sufism"-the intro is by Sheikh Ragip Robert Frager al Jerrahi

There are four stages of practice and understanding in Sufism...First is the shariah, which is the basic foundation for the next three stages. The shariah consists of teachings of Islam, basically the morality and eithers found in all religions. It provides guidance to us for living properly in this world. Trying to follow Sufism without following the shariah is like trying to build a house on a foundation of sand. Without an ordered life built on solid moral and ethical principles, mysticism cannot flourish. In Arabic, shariah means "road". It is a clear track, a well-traveled route that anyone can follow.

From this one can deduce that a Sufi uses the Qur'an as his "road" to moral living, while at the same time looking at all other faiths for the elements of similarity. There is one translation of the Qur'an that is used by most Sufis: "The Meaning of The Holy Qur'an -Abdullah Yusu Ali" It is instructive to look at passages from this translation and compare them to other translations, especially those sanctioned by the Saudi Arabian government.

When Jesus brought out the whip to beat and chase the money-changers out of the temple, exactly what form of pacifism was he teaching? I am confused.

Like you I have read and studied the Qur'an. I find the words therein to be very insightful as to human nature. For example, it states that a couple can get a divorce-but first they must try and reconcile. Another example is what to do when you are forbidden to practice your faith. A strict prescription for when fighting may be done, and the extent of the fighting, etc, is given. Now my interpretation of these passages is that a Muslim doesn't automatically HAVE to fight someone who is restricting his freedom of religion-just that if he decides to go this way, there are guidelines to follow.

I am a Sufi initiate. Sufism is the mystical sect of Islam, is initiatic in structure, with several different orders throughout the world. There are places right now where Sufis are persecuted by other Muslims and by secular governments; most, if not all, have used non-violent tactics to be allowed to practice their faith. Here's two examples: 1. Sufis in Qum, Iran, came at the call of their shaykh because their center was going to be bulldozed down. They staged a non-violent protest; over a thousand were arrested, and some 200 were still unaccounted for when I read the report on this incident. 2. Sufis in Turkey are regularly denied the right to conduct their ceremonies, including the famous Sema (whirling dervish ceremony), which can only be done in a secular fashion (without prayers, etc) for tourists. I know people in two Turkish orders and know that they conduct ceremonies in secret-no violence from these people, either.

I have always admired the prophet Jesus, who is the Breath of God (Ruh Allah) and the Seal of the Saints. I personally agree with nonviolence as a practice. But the Qur'an, as I said, leaves the matter open, mainly because God understands human nature, and has shown the limits to which violence is to be put. Sadly, there are those who don't follow these rules; but we find these in other religions as well.

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

Interesting. I thought it was a crime.

Let's have a look at the face of "tolerance" in this forum:







Ah, I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

That is one outstanding case of pot-kettle-blackness. Yikes.

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

Excellent compilation, bmus! Great work as usual.

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

Note the utter lack of ackowledgement.

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

Anyone.

Even the Catholics. You are guilty of hating ALL Catholics for the sins of some of its leaders, and judging them all for the actions of a few.

I am no fan of the Catholic church, but even I know your brush is WAAAAY too broad here.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

All I see is you making blanket statements about your fellow Christians, of the Catholic variety.

Your hypocrisy is showing.

I'm speechless.

but I would like some clarity in what you are saying, namely that "Islam is not a pacifist religion". If by this you mean it does not tell its followers to always choose a non-violent way out of things, I will agree with you. But let me add that the times when violence is to be used is severely restricted; ONLY when people will not allow you to freely practice your faith. When you fight, you do not harm innocents, nor do you damage property; when your opposition gives up, you treat them in a kindly and not a vindictive manner. You are even not supposed to fight with hatred in your heart. There is a story of Ali, The Prophet's brother in law, who was on the field of battle. He wore his opponant down after a mighty clash of swords, and was ready to deal the death blow when his foe spat in his face. Ali sheathed his sword. His opponant asked why. "Because before I was fighting for freedom to worship; after you spat on me I would have killed you out of anger and revenge."

Obviously, Islam, like Christianity, has its share of people who have twisted meanings.

always choose a non-violent way. Jesus does teach this, and it's the main reason I could not be Muslim. I believe pacifism is required to bring about a peaceful world, and that that should be a believer's goal. I understand the restrictions on violence in Islam, but, for me, Jesus' teaching of non-violence simply makes more sense, rings more true, seems better in some way. Thus, I choose to be a Christian.

And, yeah, plenty of Christians twist things, too.

Thanks!

to find peace, you must BE peace. This is one of the most difficult of practices; to keep Peace within your heart is a start.

"There is no way to peace. Peace is the way."

Jesus didn't always choose the non-violent way himself. I see you still haven't answered my question about exactly what kind of pacifism he was teaching us when he fashioned a whip to drive people out of the temple.

Not to mention the assortment of bible verses - I come not to bring peace, but a sword. Sell your stuff and buy a sword. I have come to set family members against each other. And then there's the oh-so-pacifistic book of Revelations. Even if it's allegorical, it's chock full of violence and violent solutions.

Your views smack of religious bigotry. You choose to see only the good parts of your religion, and the bad parts of everyone else's. I don't know that I've ever met a "liberal" pastor that is so quick to judge others and their faith (or lack thereof). That you are in supposedly in charge of a congregation kind of scares me.

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

I just like to confront these horrible attitudes when I see them. Others aren't necessarily as inclined to confrontation. What IS interesting is that you accuse me of hating Christians, yet I see nothing but hatred dripping from your posts, especially for those without religion. Now you even lash out and suggest I need psychiatric help. My goodness.

And denounces violence twice as much.

Don't start with that.

Again, even my Muslim friends acknowledge this. They don't mind, because they don't value pacifism. And they don't need you making their faith what it isn't. It's called "paternalism".

Islam doesn't teach pacifism.

Or if it does, please offer some quotes from the Koran.

do show that a pacific end to disputes is superior to more violent outcomes. The Beloved Prophet (pbuh) was attacked while at prayer in Mecca when pagans were in power; he never raised a hand against them. In fact, the small Muslim community only resorted to violence when they were banished to a valley outside town and forbidden food, etc. The pagans looted their homes and took their goods on a caravan; the Muslims struck back to get what was theirs and to keep from starving.

Here's a citation from The Meaning of The Holy Qur'an

9:20
Those who believe, and suffer
Exile and strive with might
And main in Allah's cause
With their goods and their persons,
Have the highest rank
In the sight of Allah
They are the people
Who achieve (salvation).

Notes by Abdullah Yusuf Ali:

Here is a good description of jihad. It may require fighting in Allah's cause, as a form of self-sacrifice. But its essence consists in 1 a true and sincere Faith, which so fixes its gaze on Allah that all selfish or worldly motives seem paltry and fade away, and 2 in earnest and ceaseless activity, involving the sacrifice (if need be) of life, perosn, or property, in the service of Allah Mere brital fighting is opposed to the whole spirit of jihad, while the sincere scholar's pen or preacher's voice or wealthy mans' contributions may be the most valuable form of jihad (Boldface mine).

25:52
Therefore listen not
To the Unbelievers, but strive
Against them with the utmost
Strenuou8sness; with the (Qur'an).

Surah Fatiha (First Sura in the Qur'an)
In the name of God, Who is Mercy and Compassion
All praise be to Thee, Master of the Universe
Most Benificent, Most Merciful
Master of the Day of Judgement
You alone to we worship, and to you alone do we ask for help
Lead us on the straight path,
The path of those you have so blessed,
Not the path of those who anger or go astray.

(translation adapted from a Sufi Imam )

Islam does not teach the incitement of violence, and strives to avoid it and to protect the innocent. The difference, however, is made clear in your telling of those Muslims who fought back when they were banished and denied food. Whether ultimately better or worse, this is a difference with Christianity. The Christian faith would have taught not to fight back even in such circumstances. The behavior of the Prophet is closer to the teachings of Jesus, but this message of pacifism is not as consistent in Islam.

I do not claim, however, that Christians have been consistent in living out these teachings. Indeed, the Church has been woefully lacking in the discipline to which Jesus calls us. But the teachings of Jesus are clear.

Which faith is truly better, we cannot know for sure, imo. But we must live up to those ethics which ring true to us. I respect Islam, and encourage my Muslims friends in their faith. For me, the pacifism of Jesus is central to my faith and ethics. So is being respectful of those who differ with me.

Thanks for your post!

If someone is pissing you off, grab a whip and chase them out of the building.

What an odd concept you have of pacifism.

So is being respectful of those who differ with me.

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

Why do I waste my time. You hate Christians. And you have that right.

But that attitude keeps losing us elections.

it's OK to abandon pacifist methods? Is that what he's teaching?

Help me, I'm trying to follow your reasoning. Oh and I don't hate Christians, I just hate the intolerant, judgmental, and arrogant ones.

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

and especially how you express it, it is FAR from progressive.

I do not defend child abuse. Never have, never will. Lashing out with these false accusations only reveals your position and your faith to be horribly insecure.

Religion I don't really care about much, as long as someone practices theirs in a tolerant and accepting way. I do not see that coming from you, and that's sad. You only get more angry and lash out with more hateful words. I think you should seriously think about what it means to follow the Prince of Peace.

Accusing atheists of supporting pedophilia has been done before on this board, and the last time a christian used that tactic it made national news and shamed DU.



What's your next sermon going to be about, rev?

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

Fred Phelps will be so proud of you.

I must have missed that memo. Thanks for the update... I wouldn't want to be too far behind the atheist-pack on these important issues. :eyes:

I occasionally poke fun at the "fundies". It's definitely about blowing off steam for me, and I'm sure some others here. Though I'm always careful to make the distinction that I'm talking about the people who take their bible literally and feel the "truth" of their dogmas entitles them to impose their view of the world on others - often by any means at their disposal. I want such meddling taken out of politics. It doesn't belong there. And as long these people feel a sense of entitlement and are emboldened to continue inflicting their special brand of righteous damage on this country - and thus the lives of many of us - I'll make noise about it.

Such people have a need to be taken seriously, so I'm always happy to poke fun at them while the slow machinery of politics grinds on and the outcome remains uncertain.

I figure if I say the word "fundie" and a person thinks I'm referring to him/her and are offended by it - well sorry, but if the shoe fits...

People who know they don't fit that catagory might not approve, but I don't see how they could be offended.

J

confronted by the backlash that finally came against right-wing partisan hypocrisy and bigotry, and especially against the Christian Right's arrogant imposition of their beliefs.

Beginning with Falwell's so-called Moral Majority in the 1980s and continueing with Roberson's "Christian Coalition," the Christian Right brought criticism on themselves because of their blatant bigotry and hypocrisy. It was an inevitable backlash, and it is now even more valid since George W. Bush has brought the Christian Right to new heights of power.

If they support the constitutional separation of church and state they can help fight the dominionists and the politicians that were installed by them.

Or, if they see nothing wrong with state sponsored religion, they can continue to whine about how we bash them while their fellow christians hijack all three branches of the government.

Most of the liberal christians on DU stand with us.

if they gain control of all three branches of government. They will rejoice.

That's why I advocate and recommend the writings of Joseph J. Adamson, who turns the tables on the Christian Right and exposes them as the religious bigots and hypocrites that they are.

At the same time, he expresses a vision of reformed Christianity which is compatible with other religions (not superior to). That's part of the value of his work. And the most valuable thing about it is that he suggests a way that the meek shall inherit the earth and establish government that is truly of, by and for the people, rather than by the rich.

Sorry, I can't get past that.