The believer's catch-22: to speak out as a believer or not?

[Htom Sirveaux]

On the one hand, speaking out on issues of public importance as a liberal/moderate believer in religious terms leads to concerns that this will legitimate conservatives also speaking out as believers.

On the other hand, if liberal/moderate believers do not speak out as believers, that can lead to confusion about why liberal/moderate believers aren't standing up to conservative believers.
-
As a practical matter, I don't think conservatives are waiting for liberal/moderate permission to speak out as believers, so it's not clear that liberal/moderate restraint really gains anything on that score. Also, if conservatives limit themselves to speaking as believers, it will be hard for them to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with them to adopt their position, especially if liberal/moderate believers are also speaking as believers while offering more secular arguments, too.

[longship]

1. Most of the people I know, and my family as well say nothing of their beliefs.

I only state my atheism if the topic of religion comes up, which is very rare. My close friends know about it, as well as close family members. On line I am open about it, especially here on DU.

But otherwise, the topic just does not come up.

If somebody asks what church I attend, I tell them, "None. I am an atheist." In this area, rural west Michigan, they often gasp (lots of Calvinists here).

[Htom Sirveaux]

2. How do they react after the gasping?

I hope they are kind, but I must admit to fear that they are too often not. I devoutly hope to see the end of bigotry against atheists in America in my lifetime. It's almost too obvious to say that you should be able to represent yourselves openly, without fear of social demerit.

[longship]

8. Well, the topic doesn't come up very often.

People around here are pretty nice, though.

[cbayer]

3. It's a total catch-22 set up by the vocal anti-theists and adopted by many of their

acolytes.

The only rational, reasonable choice is to abandon your beliefs entirely. Only then will you be saved and embrace the one way.

Just be yourself. If your beliefs guide your principals and your politics, don't be ashamed to say so. You are not responsible for those that use their to promote a different agenda. They alone are responsible for that.

The bullies will fall into the shadows when you stand up.

[Brettongarcia]

5. If you joined the Nazi Party, but publically said you were a moderate Nazi, would that be fine?

[cbayer]

6. Are you comparing being a religious person with being a member of the Nazi party?

[Brettongarcia]

11. I am suggesting an extreme example, that might be useful in seeing a potential problem

Of course to be sure, religions are often explicitly racist. And they regularly commit genocides of other races and religions; and they constantly jailed, tortured, and killed dissenters, or "heretics." These are matters of historical fact. But we will not dwell on that resemblance. Even though these problems are well documented by simple objective academic Historical accounts.

Instead, the question posed by my analogy would be this: suppose there appear to be bad things in something like say, Religion or Christianity. A supposition which even this post seems to agree (mentioning problems with conservatives).

Then what follows?

1) Is it moral to say, support Religion in general by name? Even when so many things in it may be bad?

2) Second is it even moral to support it, even with some publically-stated reservations?

Without calling Christianity "Nazis," the extreme case of Nazi-ism may help dramatically foreground possible problems with, in general, joining organizations that you do not entirely support.

Of course we all know that there is no possibility that our religions are REALLY much like Nazi-ism. But this extreme example helps see potential problems.

[cbayer]

12. Sorry, there is nothing useful about comparing religious believers to Nazis.

[Brettongarcia]

13. This post is not intended to "compare religious believers to Nazis" in any simple, direct way

Last edited Fri Aug 22, 2014, 06:40 AM - Edit history (1)

Rather it is intended to use an extreme example to explore this general problem: to explore possible dilemmas in joining, supporting a larger organization, whose overall nature you might not support. Or an organization in which you yourself have noted problems.

The example of joining the Nazi party would be admittedly, an extreme example. But in Philosophy classes in college, say, we often pose such extreme examples. Since they can help us dramatically foreground potential problems with this sort of general phenomenon.

Posing extreme examples is considered a normal teaching tool in academic settings.

[Laffy Kat]

31. Another atheist here: but your analogy

is a reduction to the absurd. And it's harsh and will be hurtful to many. Easy, there.

[Starboard Tack]

7. Public ally number one! You win the prize BG.

[aikoaiko]

20. And the jury results are in...

On Fri Aug 22, 2014, 09:09 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

If you joined the Nazi Party, but publically said you were a moderate Nazi, would that be fine?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=148573

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

The poster is suggesting that religious people are responsible for the worst atrocities committed in the name of religion, so that being religious can be meaningfully associated with becoming a Nazi. That's prejudiced, to put it mildly, not to mention inflammatory.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Aug 22, 2014, 09:26 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No, the poster is NOT suggesting that. Take your finger off the alert trigger
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Over the line
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: That's not what this poster is saying. It appears that he/she is simply stating an extreme example of a flaw in cbayer's logic... kind of like "you have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything".
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think the alerters description of what was written is a figment of his or her imagination.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Warren Stupidity]

52. Oh what a shame, a jury got it right.

[Jim__]

4. I'm not sure I see a catch-22.

I assume that almost all liberal/moderate believers are secular - religion doesn't really have a place in state policy. Yes, believers opinions are going to be informed by their beliefs, but, if they want their beliefs reflected in public policy, then they need to cite secular reasons for the policy.

When believers meet to celebrate/discuss their beliefs, then, of course, they can be specific about which public policies jibe with their beliefs. But, in a multi-cultural country like the US, citing religious beliefs as a basis for public policy is divisive. One religion's beliefs have no persuasive power over people of other religions and really can't serve as a powerful argument for a public policy.

When liberal/moderate believers disagree with conservative believers about beliefs, they should argue those issues as religious issues and not as public policy issues.

[cbayer]

9. Is it not possible to take a political stand based on one's religious beliefs

but not have the position that one's beliefs should become policy.

With civil rights movements, for example, religion is often used in a very positive way to make the case for equal rights and civil justice. This is not to say that non-religious people and groups don't make exactly the same case. They do.

But should one be reticent about making the religious case for a certain public policy?

[Brettongarcia]

15. This may in effect impose your religious beliefs on others.

Here, most liberal Christians therefore would simply separate their religion from policy making; rather as some here earlier separated "faith" pronouncements, from statements about "facts." Religion, from science. Word from world.

To be sure there are problems in turn, with this dualistic and rather schizophrenic compartmentalization or partition, between religion, vs. life; "word" vs. "world."

[Jim__]

18. I don't believe that in a multi-cultural society, religious arguments are persuasive to the ...

... general public.

My scripture says this and that has no persuasive power over people - likely the majority - who don't accept your scripture. If what your scripture says has implications that apply - outside the context of your religion - to society in general, then you should be able to make a secular argument.

If you want to make a religious case for a certain public policy, that case should be made to your co-religionists; but, I don't believe it should be made to the public at large.

[cbayer]

19. I disagree. As the primo example, I would offer up MLK as having

an extremely persuasive religious argument. And there are so many others. Whether you accept the scripture of MLK or Ghandi or St Francis or the Buddha is not important. It's the message.

So, we are not in agreement.

Two current things I will bring up are the "Not All Like That" project and Moral Mondays.

[Brettongarcia]

33. MLK had a religious argument. But it had holes in it. Like this one: "slaves, obey your masters."

One problem with religion is that it is too equivocal, indecisive, and contradictory. Liberals could quote Jesus on "love." But on the other hand, conservative Christians had lots of Bible-based arguments against Civil Rights; especially they liked to say that blacks were the evil, dark "sons of Ham" and so forth.

So finally, given severe problems with the religious arguments, what made the difference in passing say, the Civil Rights Voting Act of 1964? Finally it was actually the secular and scientific arguments that made the more convincing case. 1) Science arguing that minorities were biologically human beings. Then 2) secular reasoning adding that therefore, basic human rights would of necessity, by the "laws of nature," pertain to minorities.

Religion played a role in the Civil Rights movement. But finally it was not enough. Finally it was not so much religious as much as secular and scientific findings that won the day for Equality.

[Htom Sirveaux]

21. What do you think of this alternative perspective?

We're a multicultural country, but that doesn't mean that we have to keep our cultural differences "in house" so to speak, in order to avoid divisiveness. What if a person made both the religious and the secular cases concurrently, and made it clear that the religious case was an expression of his/her particular religious context, not a presumption that everyone else shared that context?

So they could say, for example, "As a Baptist, I believe in soul freedom, that God does not accept coerced, rote religion and so pressuring children to say bureaucratic prayers that they do not mean is not just spiritually empty, it's positively offensive to God. As an American citizen and taxpayer, I do not want my taxes going to support religious expression in schools because it violates the establishment clause by causing state employees to endorse particular forms of religious expression. There isn't enough time in the whole school day to include all the forms of religious and non-religious expression that would make that neutral enough to pass the establishment clause."

What's wrong with this "both and" approach?

[Brettongarcia]

35. Your present specific example alone, will seem reasonable to some. However?

Actually your specific example note, has religion ... agreeing not to interfere in public life.

In contrast, it is easy to think - and see countless examples of - this kind of dualistic approach going wrong.

To be sure though, it was precisely in part such an argument in the name of "Freedom of Religion," that caused it to be agreed from the days of the Founders, that religion should not intrude itself in official laws. After 100 years of fighting between Catholics and various Protestants for control of governments (from 1588 through 1614-48 and on) it was well known from historical examples, that religions trying to enter the public sphere, and to write laws and control governments, in effect often favored one religion, or another. Resulting in severe religious conflicts. Like the 30 years war of 16.18-48.

It was precisely because of evident problems with religions trying to control governments, that America was founded. For whom finally it came to be stipulated, in the most common reading of the "Establishment Clause," that religion would simply not be allowed any more to enter into public life, or into a law-making capacity.

Your clever example therefore is interesting, and historically relevant, to be sure. However, to be sure, this case was in effect the last very last religious argument that was effectively allowed to play a very, very major role in US law. And it was the argument that in effect, severely restricted religious involvement in lawmaking.

A rather special and final case.

[Htom Sirveaux]

39. The establishment clause does not require that religion "not be allowed to enter into public life"

if by that you mean that nobody is allowed to relate religion to politics in a public discussion of political issues (and that's how I read what you say, given that you distinguish "entering into public life" from "entering into a law-making capacity&quot . The constitution governs relationships between citizens and the government (federal or state), not between citizens and other citizens.

[Brettongarcia]

41. "Public life or official government law" might here be alternative names for the same thing.

I.e.: our Founders stipulated that there would be no official establishment of religion in the US. Or more broadly: any very considerable control of the US by religious forces.

Re: Your notion that the Constitution only covers relations between citizens and the government? May not be familiar to some. Would you like to elaborate? I can think of a few probable objections to this principle.

[Htom Sirveaux]

46. Or they might not be. I don't see why we should consider them the same thing.

Public life seems on its face to be a much broader label than just official govenment laws. Speaking at a town hall meeting is a public act, but it is not an official law by any stretch of the imagination. Do you have an argument for why we should favor your interpretation instead?

Regarding the constitution, the whole point of having one is to determine which ordinary legislative acts are permissible. It's a "law about other laws" as it were, and as such regulates the law-making body, the government. Citizens by themselves are not the law-making body directly (and when they are the constitution regulates them too, as in the case of overturning referenda like Prop 8 on constitutional grounds). But certainly in their day-to-day relationships they are not law-making bodies.

[Brettongarcia]

50. Possibly you also implied: the relationships of one person to another, are not the subject of the C?

[Htom Sirveaux]

53. I didn't imply it: I stated it.

The constitution governs the government (how it can and cannot use its power towards the citizenry), not ordinary citizens in their day-to-day relationships with each other. And that's true.

[Brettongarcia]

59. That is said to be true. But consider this case:

The government says that the citizen's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of liberty, cannot be reduced by any governmental law.

But next: what does that mean in practical effect? It might seem to mean that we can and should pass laws say, that make murder between citizens illegal. Since in part, murder would prevent one citizen from exercising his liberty, or his right to life.

To try to get around this, a state might say, try to pass a law legalizing citizens to shoot their guns anywhere, and to shoot bullets into each other at will. But then the Constitution would forbid this action. Which however is not just an action 1) between state government and citizens. But also between 2) one citizen and another.

So finally it might seem that as an actual practical matter, or deep in the very logic of it all, it is very hard or impossible to separate laws that "only" govern relations of citizens to Government. And not relations of one citizen to another.

As this applies to "freedom of Religion"? It means that say a Fundamentalist who says his religion allows executions of heretics, and who wants to torture and burn to death a heretic in the US, cannot do so. Even in the Fundamentalist's day to day interaction with other people. Because this kind of interpersonal relationship violates a few principles of the Constitution.

[Jim__]

55. In the case you cite, the government has actually usurped a role of religion.

And, sure, in such a case, religious people can object on religious grounds - but even here there is a caveat. Previously I said that the religious case should be made to your co-religionists. Let's look at the case that you've made. It is a Baptist minister that is objecting on religious grounds, and probably in a way that would be acceptable to almost everyone. It is also probably the case that the prayer the minister is objecting to, is a prayer that is normally acceptable to Baptists. But, just for grins, let's say that the prayer the minister is objecting to is this one:

Our Father, Who art in heaven,
Hallowed be Thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come.
Thy Will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil. Amen.

That, of course, is the Catholic version of the the Lord's Prayer. And, suppose that the minister added something in his objection to the school prayer that the prayer is not even being said correctly. Even if he said this in a private meeting of his co-religionists, it would probably get out and, instantly, he loses a number of potential allies and makes the issue more contentious.

Or, we could look at another type of case. Say, the US voting day was changed from Tuesday to Saturday. To a lot of religious people - people who observe a strict Sabbath on Saturday - that would be an outrage. Most people who don't have a personal problem with voting on Saturday would probably agree that the change is unfair and should be undone. But suppose, someone who celebrates on Saturday were to say, either in a private meeting to co-religionists, or to the general public, "Why not just change it to Sunday?" This remark would insult a number of potential allies, and probably cost support.

My thought about not using sectarian arguments on public issues is not a hard and fast rule. I do believe that it is easy to offend potential supporters when you use sectarian arguments. I think that, in most cases, the secular argument will be, far and away, more powerful and persuasive than a sectarian argument.

[trotsky]

27. Sure it is. As President Obama so eloquently put it:

Last edited Fri Aug 22, 2014, 01:37 PM - Edit history (1)

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible."

When done properly, then, the believer is arguing that their secular reasoning should be come policy. Their beliefs may match that, but they have presented reasoning that is accessible to all - not just those who happen to subscribe to their same beliefs.

You should probably go argue with the president and tell him how he's wrong.

[Htom Sirveaux]

34. I don't think citizens with just a sectarian perspective are violating democracy by offering it

without translation. Democracy expands when their perspective is at least heard. They won't be very persuasive, but success is not a requirement of democracy.

Additionally, making religious arguments does not bar someone from making secular arguments at the same time, so would there be a problem with doing both, and making it clear that the religious argument does not presuppose that everyone shares that same religious context?

[trotsky]

36. I think you missed the point of the quote. n/t

[Htom Sirveaux]

37. How so?

President Obama said don't simply make religious arguments (which I agree with, but not for his given reason that it violates democracy), but it doesn't follow that we are then required to leave them out. Adding secular to the religious would satisfy what he said, would it not?

[trotsky]

48. Go back to what cbayer said. It's a direct negation of her claim.

Namely, that it is "not possible to take a political stand based on one's religious beliefs but not have the position that one's beliefs should become policy."

Sure it is, as the president says, when you have secular reasoning to back the position. Go ahead and believe what you want, no one is saying you can't have your own religious reasons.

[Htom Sirveaux]

49. I think you misread her.

She said "Is it not possible to take a political stand based on one's religious beliefs but not have the position that one's beliefs should become policy?"

In other words, you, she, and I are actually agreeing that it IS possible to take a political stand based on religious beliefs in a way that does not impose them: by having additional secular arguments. All I added was that I don't think that citizens who raise sectarian arguments without bothering to translate or add secular arguments are imposing either merely by raising said arguments. Merely to raise them is not to have them prevail.

[trotsky]

56. Dunno about that - she wraps up her post with this question:

...should one be reticent about making the religious case for a certain public policy?

As the president said, yes, one should.

[Htom Sirveaux]

58. Guess it depends then on whether she meant "reticent"

in the sense of "should one never mention the religious case for a certain public policy at all?" or in your sense of "should one never mention the religious case for a certain public policy unless you also have secular reasons?"

Either way, what do you think of my point that just raising a religious case without translation or added secular argument doesn't by itself violate democracy because merely making that case does not mean it will be persuasive? That's a separate issue from whether religious people can make a combined case of religious and secular (I think we three are in agreement that they can).

[trotsky]

60. I'm still trying to figure out how someone would "violate democracy" by saying something.

Those are your words and I'm not going to defend them.

[Htom Sirveaux]

63. I was trying to capture the opposite of "democracy requires"

from the Obama quote you cited.

[trotsky]

67. I'm just going to return upthread and suggest you missed the point of the quote. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

10. I agree with longship.

Why discuss it, unless someone brings it up. Then again, we are not believers.

I know many liberal/moderate believers. Some, like my father in law, are very active in reclaiming Christianity from the conservatives and fundies, and I applaud them for that. I don't think their speaking out legitimizes the conservatives, though I did wonder at first. Then, I saw the good will and sincerity of these people, who dedicate most of their time to public service and liberal progressive political causes. They truly inspire all around them, regardless of religious belief. They write books, they march, they organize and they never, or hardly ever, talk scripture. They are about doing, not pontificating.

[Brettongarcia]

14. I was raised in a religous family; religion seemed entirely good. But later I saw many bad things.

Today I see here many defenders of religion, who seem to themselves and to others, to be very good. And yet however, there are signs of hidden bad things in them.

First 1) we can see that that have some obviously, very bad associates: religious folks genocidally murdering others.

And 2) then note that even our "Good" Christians come from historically, a very, very bad historical record. The Old Testament and beyond.

Following these early indications or signs, I began to look to see if there was not an unseen, darker underside, even to the self-consciously "good" people of our own time. And oddly? I ultimately found a dark side - even to the very things that are widely considered to be good.

First I found that amazingly, 3) even the Bible itself warned that superficially good persons, even priests and ministers, are often hiding terribly bad things underneath. The Bible itself issued hundreds of warnings about bad, deceitful, and "false" things in amazingly, our very holiest men and angels. "Satan" himself, the Bible told us, often presents himself as a very good person; as even a priest or "minister." Even as the "angel of light" (2 Corin. 11.14; KJV & RSV).

The Bible warned that it was often precisely in the very people who seemed best of all, that the worst evils would ultimately be found.

So could there actually be very, very dark things, underneath and behind ... these very kind and loving people who appear to themselves and others, to be so very, very good? First of all, even the Bible itself suggested that there could be.

[Starboard Tack]

16. Matthew 7.7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened

Look for dark things and you will find them, especially if you spend too much time in the basement.

Personally, I prefer the sunnier side of life.

I wish you well BG.

[rug]

17. Why the hell not?

[hrmjustin]

22. I speak out as a liberal believer. I don't get why anyone would have an issue with it.

Do people want us to be silent?

[cbayer]

23. Yes!! You are giving shelter to the religious right and extremists of all kinds.

You are guilty, guilty, guilty!!! Stop enabling them. Once you do that there will be no more terrorism in the world and we can all live in peace.

[hrmjustin]

25. How can I possibly live with myself!

[cbayer]

28. I don't know. It's obvious going to be difficult to go back in the closet and renounce

your religious beliefs, but it must be done.

Think of the children!!

[hrmjustin]

29. I always knew I was n evildoer st heart.

[cbayer]

30. Satan be gone!

[hrmjustin]

32. The power of Christ has compelled me.

[Brettongarcia]

38. So how does hrmjustin read Jesus, on the error of the Pharisees?

Or how does he read Jesus, when Jesus says to the apostle Peter, "Get behind me Satan" (Mat. 16.23)?

Or how does he read the Bible, when it warned constantly against priests and ministers? When it told us in Revelation that even the first foundational Christian churches, that "I have not found your works perfect"?

Or when the apostle James says "we all make many mistakes"?

Or when we are told that "the prophet is a fool, and the man of the spirit is mad."

And ... a hundred more quotations from the Bible itself. Where God warns that the greatest evil, is precisely in the very people who think they are following religion, and even specifically Christ, and being good:



“With you is my contention O priest” (Hos. 4.4 RSV).

“Prophesy against the prophets of Israel” (Ezk. 13.2 RSV).

“The prophet is a fool, the man of the spirit is mad” (Hos. 9.7 RSV).

“The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?” (Jer. 5.31 RSV).

“Do not trust in these deceptive words: 'This is the temple [or church] of the LORD'” (Jer. 7.4 RSV).

“The heart is deceitful above all things” (Jer. 17.9; Ps. 12.2).

“He leads priests away stripped” (Job 12.19 RSV).

“Behold, you are nothing, and your work is nought; an abomination is he who chooses you” (Isa. 41.24 RSV).

“Do not listen to the words of the prophets.... I did not send the prophets.... When one of this people, a prophet, or a priest asks you, 'What is the burden of the LORD?' you shall say to them, 'You are the burden, and I will cast you off'” (Jer. 23.16-21-33 RSV).

“From prophet to priest, every one deals falsely” (Jer. 6.13 RSV).

“Teaching as doctrines the precepts of man” (Mat. 15.9).

“Now, O priests, this command is for you.... I will curse you blessings; indeed I have already cursed them … and so I make you despised” (Mal. 2.1-9 RSV).

“The heavens will vanish like smoke” (Isa. 51.6 RSV).

“On that day, says the LORD of hosts, I will cut off the names of the idols from the land...; and also I will remove from the land the prophets and the unclean spirit. And if any on again appears as a prophet, his father and mother who bore him shall say to him, 'You shall not live....' On that day, every prophet will be ashamed of his vision when he prophesies; he will not put on a hairy mantle to deceive, but he will say, 'I am no prophet, I am a tiller of the soil; for the land has been my possession since my youth.' And if anyone asks him, 'What are these wounds on your back?' he will say, 'The wounds I received in the house of my friends.' 'Awake , O sword, against by shepherd, against the amen who stands next to me,' says the LORD of hosts'” (Zech. 13.2-7 RSV).

“All the host of heaven shall rot away” (Isa. 34.4 RSV).

“And he [Jesus] turned to Peter and said, 'Get behind me Satan!'” (NT, Mat. 16.23 RSV).

So what do you make of these and a hundred more quotes like it, from the document and tradition that you pretend to follow and revere? Oddly, Jesus himself ends up calling the very founders of conventional Christianity, "Satan."

The words of your God, himself. Ever read them closely? My finding is that if you actually read the Bible itself, you end up with a completely different sense of things than conventional believers, Christians, have. In fact, rather the opposite sense of things. Almost in effect, the atheist position.

Oddly enough.

[hrmjustin]

40. Why are you asking me this?

[Brettongarcia]

43. You just suggested that you yourself and your sense of liberal religion, could not be very wrong?

Could not be even the opposite to what you took it for.

However? These quotes show that the Bible said over and over that precisely those very religious persons who think they are good, are often the worst people of all; and just don't know it themselves.

The above quotes are just a few of the hundreds that warn about Pride, vanity - and against being very very sure that your own religion is good.

The Bible warning that those very people who are sure their religion is good, will be found very, very wrong.

[hrmjustin]

44. And?

[Brettongarcia]

51. I just quoted a dozen biblical passages that warn that apparently holy men can be VERY wrong.

[hrmjustin]

54. Again and?

Also why did you say;
"So what do you make of these and a hundred more quotes like it, from the document and tradition that you pretend to follow and revere?"

[Brettongarcia]

61. Above, you seemed to find the idea that your liberal notion of religion is bad, laughable.

I just produced a dozen quotes from the Bible/God, warning about being sure of that.

[hrmjustin]

62. How so?

[hrmjustin]

42. what do you mean when you say;

"So what do you make of these and a hundred more quotes like it, from the document and tradition that you pretend to follow and revere?"

[Brettongarcia]

65. You just found the notion that liberal religionists are say, enablers for Fundamentalists, laughable

Smiley faces and all.

But yours might be a particular case of what the Bible warned about: failing to look deeply enough into yourself, to see if even you yourself - and even your best liberal idea of Good and God - might be wrong. That you might say, be delivering unsuspected support to bad Fundamentalists. Without knowing it. Without seeing this in yourself.

Interestingly, some common sermons make this basic point, even to liberal congregations. There is one particular sermon that especially warns in effect, against thinking that you yourself, and your sense of religion, are assuredly blameless. The 1) one where Jesus notes to the apostles around him, that "one of you will betray me." Then this sermons notes this: most of the disciples ask "Is it I Lord?"

The moral of that sermon is that even the highest disciples of Jesus themselves, were not entirely sure of themselves and their sense of religion. Or in other words, they were not sure that their sense of religion would not betray, go against, Jesus.

The moral is that we should all be humble about even our best sense of who God is, and how well we are following him. Since even the highest disciples that personally knew and followed Jesus, that founded our Christian churches many of them (like Peter), were at times condemned by Jesus. Or at times, had doubts about themselves, and their ability to teach true ideas about God.

Another relevant sermon or two here: 2) the case where Pilate "washes his hands" of any blame for the death of Jesus. Leaving the blame for bad things, on others.

Here you are assuming that you yourself surely have no role in encouraging fundamentalist errors. But? The Bible itself suggests that you should seriously consider that possibility.

The Bible suggests that you should always carefully look to see if there were some undiscovered sins in yourself.

Since even the greatest apostles were not sure that they themselves, were not making fundamental errors.

[hrmjustin]

66. I mean this with all resoect but I don't have any clue here whst you are trying to say.

Be a bit briefer and concise.

[Brettongarcia]

68. To understand: explain what you meant when you said "How can I live with myself?"

[hrmjustin]

69. It was a joke. note the smiley.

[Brettongarcia]

70. And the joke was that 1) you don't believe, or 2) don't care, if you support Fundamentalism?

[hrmjustin]

71. It was just a joke.

[rug]

45. Admit it! You're a Heaven's Gate survivor and you missed your plane to Jonestown!

[hrmjustin]

47. My secret is out.

[okasha]

24. Obviously, some do.

If we're silent, then the bigoted assumption that all believers are either fundamentalist idiots or give cover to fundamentalist idiots is left undisturbed.

Like Htom, I think it's possible to make both the secular and the religious argument simultaneously. In some cases, I think it's necessary. The liberal churches have been way ahead of the secular lawmakers on equal marriage and have been allies in making the secular 14th Amendment case in the courts.

[hrmjustin]

26. exactly! we must speak out on issues.

[carolinayellowdog]

57. Spiritual values, yes; religious beliefs, no

Not sure how you mean "believers" but the word is repellent to me whereas "religious" isn't. I know what I know, suspect what I suspect, and admit to being too ignorant to even guess about some things. When people express their religious feelings and values in the public arena, that isn't necessarily divisive. But for anyone to say in essence "these factual propositions that I don't KNOW to be true, I nevertheless BELIEVE to be true and am therefore acting on them"... that feels intrusive to me. And makes me want to argue with them, that if you act on guesses about things you don't know, that legitimizes others doing the same. There are so many things that we can know to be true, and feelings and values by which we decide what to do about them... introducing belief into the equation just seems like a blind alley to me.

But then the worst treatment I've ever gotten has been from people who felt entitled to be aggressive on behalf of their beliefs.

on edit-- so I Googled "religion without belief" and found this blog post which sums up my own perspective.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

64. Speak about them to your fellow believers. Speak about them with non-believers who

are interested. But do not speak about your religious beliefs as if any public policy ought to be influenced by them.

If you say, "We must have policy X or law Z because my god tells me that what that law or policy supports is good," or "because my god tells me that what that law forbids is bad." What your god tells you is not a justification for any public policy or law to be enacted.

Let's say a law allows (or stops the disallowing of) same sex marriage, but your god says same sex marriage is sinful. What your god says should have no influence on that law. The establishment clause tells us that.

[MellowDem]

72. Anyone who speaks on a public issue...

Saying "I think it should be this way just because my faith says so" won't get much respect. And that's what policy based on religion is.

Faith is belief without evidence. Even believers won't give much respect to other beliefs with no evidence, they reserve that right for their own faith alone, which is why they believe it and not others.