An Open Apology to Christians

[Cary]

My eyes have been opened today by a few of my fellow DU ers. Unfortunately, there is a point to be conceded, I think, to conservatives about "Christian bashing". I say, "unfortunately" only because I think it's unfortunate that there is some Christian bashing going on.

It is unfortunate, too, that this "Christian bashing" has become so intertwined with the debate, in so many ways. Perhaps this was done intentionally by those on the right, to try to divide us?

Being good liberals I think we must sensitize ourselves to this and figure out how to avoid it.

If I have been insensitive to my Christian fellow DU ers, I apologize. And if I err in any of my posts please, please point it out to me.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Well, Cary, that's very nice of you :)

I actually haven't been offended by any "anti"-Christian posts here, so certainly don't recall you putting my nose out of joint at any time. ;)

[Robb]

2. bash, v:

To engage in harsh, accusatory, threatening criticism.

I must have missed this. :shrug:

[drdigi420]

3. i am never offended

by ppl that have the guts to stand up to the tyranny of christians

(edited for typo)

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. fundy evangelical ones, you mean

Unless you consider Jimmy Carter to be a tyrant. ;)

[drdigi420]

what other kinds of christians

are involved in the tyranny of christians?

i am speaking english here arent i?

[Cary]

8. Perhaps, drdigi, but. . .

our fellow DUers are not the culprits.

[drdigi420]

27. i didnt say they were

you can stand up to christian tyranny without believing all christians are tyrants

[sangha]

98. I would disagree

I think some DUers are as much the culprits as the intolerant religious right

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1165825#1165988

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[damnyankee2601]

39. "Anti-theist", that's a good term.

Useful for distinguishing atheists, who come in both benign and bigot varieties.

Thanks for the rhetoric improvement.

[drdigi420]

58. i abhor religion because of its falseness

thats why i am an anti-thiest

i believe religion, like other lapses of reality, should be a personal, private matter, not forced upon others

i want religion off my money, out of my schools, and out of my govt

how is that wrong?

[Blue_Chill]

67. You dont' hate the religious

you just don't want to have to see them, hear them, or have to deal with them in anyway. What are you going to tell us next - "Hey I have plenty of religious friends"

:eyes:

[drdigi420]

no, most of my friends are athiests too

we're reality types

we dont buy into your fictional stories, and that bothers you

keep your religion to yourself if you dont want it 'bashed'

its pretty simple

dont go telling ppl youre crazy and they wont make fun of you for
being crazy

[Muddleoftheroad]

I have friends of all kinds

The only requirement is that they are good people, tolerant people. Thanks for reminding us why we are bothered by your post.

[drdigi420]

96. i have friends of all kinds too

most happen to be athiests because most happen to be genius level IQs

most are also professional programmers or administrators

any stereotypical crap you'd like to read into that?

[Muddleoftheroad]

100. Genius level IQs

What a laugh.

[drdigi420]

106. laugh all you want

we'll make more

[Muddleoftheroad]

108. I can't imagine any genius

listening to things like you just posted here for more than a couple seconds.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[Muddleoftheroad]

115. No, I just disbelieve in them

I will use Walt Starr's term and call them "myth."

[drdigi420]

118. kewl, you have your beliefs

i have reality

ENJOY!

[Muddleoftheroad]

125. Your reality = myth

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

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

[Az]

131. Sorry but

I understand your issues but your tactics are beyond me.

For me when one addresses individuals you disagree with I find you should seek a way to establish communication and trust between the groups. From there you can explore the similarities and differences and perhaps guide each other in seeing errors in each others ways. Or simply supporting the things you find to be a positive in their paths. Either way you end up growing that which is positive for you and creating more allies prepared to defend you should the need arise.

Assailing beliefs and religions seems to me to have no rhyme or reason. You certainly are not going to convince the believers. In fact they will set themself against you. Those who may be open to your position will likley be offended by your tactics. It seems to me to be a lose/lose proposition. You find yourself in a society besieged by beliefs you find foolish and you have no impact on the direction the society moves. I just don't see what you hope to accomplish.

[Brian Sweat]

179. Actually, the vast majority of people with IQs in the genious range

work as scientist and mathmaticians and the vast majority of the people in these fields (over 90%) consider themselves to be either atheists or agnostics.

[AngryAmish]

110. Is that why they want to be called "Brights"?

Just word-play.

[Blue_Chill]

117. heh! Nice bigotted post buddy.

i have friends of all kinds too most happen to be athiests because most happen to be genius level IQs

They are smart so they aren't christian. heh.

thanks for playing.....

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[Muddleoftheroad]

129. Ah, the invisible friends...

[Forkboy]

133. just like invisible gods

:shrug:

[Muddleoftheroad]

138. It's only fair

He can doubt our beliefs and mock them. We can do the same right back.

[Forkboy]

151. Finally,you get it!

Bravo!

[Muddleoftheroad]

157. Oh I get it

And it goes against everything DU and civilized society stand for. But I won't just sit here and have my God, my life, my faith mocked and abused.

[Brian Sweat]

165. Your problem is that you consider it mocking if I simply express my view

that you beliefs are false.

[Forkboy]

171. Crap,you dont get it

I thought we were making progress too :-(

One more try-You may mock others,others may mock you.

Welcome to Freedom Of Speech.

[Az]

181. Freedom of speech maybe

Effective no. Mocking gets you nowhere.

[Forkboy]

185. Well that's a different debate

I was just pointing out that we all the right to mock as we see fit.Whether that's the right way to go is debatable.

[Muddleoftheroad]

192. Freedom of speech

Yes. Appropriate speech, no.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

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

[Muddleoftheroad]

140. Are you surprised?

[Rich Hunt]

if they have 'genius level IQs'...

....then why are some of them ignorant of basic US history and cultural diversity?

I can think of a few 'atheist' countries that persecuted millions.

[Rich Hunt]

147. that's funny

I consider myself an agnostic and I don't like your attitude.

Separation of church and state - sure, but I don't feel 'oppressed' by religion, nor do I look down on those who practice it.

Nor am I ignorant about religious persecution and discrimination in the US.

[Synthesis]

174. well first of all

I can just as easily consider your atheism a "lapse in reality" and ask you to keep it to yourself. Asking people to shut up about their fundamental beliefs is not the same as being universally tolerant. I don't think religion should be forced upon anyone, but I also don't think openly professing your beliefs constitutes such forcing.

[Forkboy]

48. bye

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[Blue_Chill]

62. You have no point.

You made a "christain tyranny" statement in response to a apology to DU christians. Now I suppose you are going to claim you only meant some christians? heh. Whatever.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[Blue_Chill]

72. how am I a tyrant?

Please do tell. What do I want forced on you?

[drdigi420]

86. you want me to not be able to say

that the bible is not factual, and, in fact, a fictional myth

thats MY religious belief, that you refuse to accept, much less respect, as you demand i respect your myth

pfft

[Blue_Chill]

95. "Not factual" Dear god no?!! That would mean you agree with me.

I don't consider the bible fact. Try agian.

[drdigi420]

97. then you are on your way to recovery

many christians have been healed and now see the truth

its not hard, it just takes an open mind

[Blue_Chill]

184. Still preaching I see

:eyes:

[Forkboy]

70. Why say "bye" if you weren't leaving?

I got all excited for nothing.

[Blue_Chill]

82. Why post when you have nothing relevant to ad?

??

[Forkboy]

87. I just like you, that's why BC

You're my pal.No one sends love notes like you do :hug:

[Blue_Chill]

90. Still aren't over that eh?

heh. Thanks you just made my day. :D

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

141. awwww...you didn't forget

how sweet :hug:

[Dob Bole]

80. Blue Chill is a Bigot now! Yay!

He said somebody was anti-religious, and now he gets to be a bigot! Yay! Can I be one too? I thought it kind of sucked when Stalin killed all those Jews, so I guess I qualify.

[drdigi420]

84. actually, his bigotry is evident in previous posts

and that is what i was referring to

wish i could do a search, i'd give you examples

[Dob Bole]

92. Question: As an Atheist, on what compass would you define what bigotry is?

That is to say, you have charged someone with being a bigot. That's dandy. But how do you tell what a bigot is, if after all there are no absolutes, in philosophical terms? Is a bigot determined by the standards of our society? If so, then Blue Chill is certainly not a bigot by other people's standards, and you have no basis for charging him with being such.

[drdigi420]

102. i define bigotry as

discrimination against someone because of something that they cannot control, such as race, sexual orientation, etc

[Dob Bole]

123. You'd have to be more specific...

That's a very safe answer, to be sure, but the factors you listed are naturally discriminatory. I naturally look different than a white person, and I naturally am attracted to women. Your answer also implies that it's ok to discriminate (i.e. set apart with malicious intentions) based on self-controllable factors- calling someone a "fatty," a "raghead," or "Holy Joe" is perfectly permissible.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[Dob Bole]

104. sorry...

The only basis I know of for calling him a bigot were the above posts, since I do not have the ability to view PMs. But if he has done this to you he should apologize.

[Forkboy]

120. He has,but he wont

nor do I expect him to do so.

[Blue_Chill]

139. Don't believe everything you read

Forkboy insulted me and I lost my temper. Stuff happens. You can see evidence of his friendly nature in this thread.

[Forkboy]

159. No,he should believe it

There's no lie in my post.You know it,I know it and the people I shared it with know it.

I did insult you,I admit.But you can't be lobbing softballs out there like you did without expecting someone to make contact and hit a homer :)

I can be very friendly...but only to those that deserve it.Sorry,but that would seem to rule you out.

[Blue_Chill]

169. Please stop with the insults

thanks.

[Forkboy]

173. What insult?

are you mocking my beliefs?

[Muddleoftheroad]

94. Care to cite examples

Or do you just want to run off at the mouth?

[youngred]

59. Damn all those tyranical Christians!

:eyes:

[Dob Bole]

4. Thank you

I don't remember being offended by any of your posts in particualar, though. :) But there's a fairly large number of assholes on DU, I've found out.

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. Thank you for realizing this

I wish more would do so.

[DrWeird]

7. Is this what you consider "christian bashing"

"The Bible is full of myths."

and

"Holy Rollers are destroying the earth."

That's what another poster referred to as christian bashing. That's not christian bashing, that's just disagreement, and if you don't want people to disagree with you then DU is probably the wrong place.

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. That's EXACTLY what we are talking about

The Bible is our holy book. If you attack it, you attack our beliefs.

And many here consider Holy Rollers anybody who believes in God.

[Zero Gravitas]

11. the bible

just because the bible is your "holy book" doesn't mean I can't express a negative opinion about it. Sorry, but this is still a relatively free country.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

12. You're way off. Those people disagree. Why does that offend you?

Is to question with the bible to attack your beliefs?

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. But Muddle, some Christians do not believe in inerrancy

and do believe that some of the stories in the Bible are myths (or parables).

So I think the issue here is tone of the statement as much as anything else.

I would like to think the difference between an academic discussion and a smear against our beliefs is readily apparent, but there are some folks to whom even questioning the Bible academically IS a smear.

[Muddleoftheroad]

99. And there are some here who make ANY reference to religion

An automatic smear.

I am more than happy to discuss religion with most DUers. It is radical Godless types that deliberately offend.

[salin]

14. It is that last statement

that I think fuels alot of the problems. No distinguishing between groups that are most certainly NOT monolithic.

btw... "the bible is a book of myths" is a different statement than "I have always viewed the bible as a book of myths." The first is stated as fact and lacks any respect for those to whom it is a holy book; the second states personal opinion - in a way that almost contextualizes whatever statements follow. The first starts a flame war (intentionally hostile due to lack of respect)... the second can start a discussion (even a debate or disagreement).

[Walt Starr]

22. The one that pisses off most theists is, All gods are myths by definition

And quite frankly, that is a 100% factually accurate and irrefutable statement.

[salin]

26. ah - demonstrating my point exactly

flaming and offending is valued.

Giving context to a conversation and respecting that others percieve the same thing differently... for the birds.

Woohoo.

[Dob Bole]

32. uh...yeah.....i'm really pissed....

What theists do you talk to? Stupid ones?

[Walt Starr]

183. Sorry, should have been more explicit

Theists who are prone to be pissed about statement with which they do not agree.

And yes, the statement "All gods are myths by definition" is irrefutable. The reason for this is nobody can present any independently verifiable evidence to support the existance of any alleged god.

[Muddleoftheroad]

101. Ah, the Walt Starr fantasy resurfaces

God is only a myth to you. You are lucky that the reverse is not true.

[Forkboy]

17. My beliefs are offended by some views down in I/P

deal with it.

[DrWeird]

21. Well then. You're wrong.

I can say whatever I want to about the Bible.

It says that homosexuals should be killed, and for that alone it's bullshit. And if you don't like me saing so, to bad. If you believe that it's the word of God, then to bad. That's your fault, not mine.

As for Holy Rollers, if you misinterpret the meaning it's your fault. The original Holy Rollers were a cult in Oregon known for spending hours rolling on the floor, incest, orgies, and animal sacrifices. In the colloquial, it refers to religious zealots who do things like speak in tongues, kiss rattle snakes, and fly planes into buildings.

[Brian Sweat]

28. You open yourself up tto criticism,

by equating the questioning of you religion with the bashing of it.

I have as much right to express a view that your religion is false as you have to express a view that it is not. If this offends you, then that is your problem.

Bashing is when someone makes a blanket statement like, "all Christians are idiots."

[Muddleoftheroad]

107. What a laugh

It is all in how you do it.

[Brian Sweat]

134. Actually, it seems that it is more in how YOU perceive it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

144. Clearly, it's not just me

So, that would again fall on the doorstep of the persons doing it.

[Brian Sweat]

156. If you are offended because I do not share your religious beliefs

then that is you problem.

[Muddleoftheroad]

160. No jacket or belief required

I try to treat other religious beliefs or LACK with respect. When I get none in return, I return that as well.

[Brian Sweat]

167. But if I express my belief that the bible is fiction

you consider that a lack of respect. That is your problem.

[Blue_Chill]

175. It's all about how you phrase it.

I can say 'i disagree don't believe there is a God or the bibles relevance in modern day' or 'christianity is for morons that believe in cloud beings'

It's all about how you phrase it.

[Brian Sweat]

182. That not what muddle said.

He said that for someone to say that the Bible is full of myths is an attack on his religion.

[mojo2004]

29. I agree...terms like Bible-Thumpers, Holy-Rollers....

are derogatory. They are blanket insults to a whole group of people based soley on their religous beliefs. I don't see much difference than using the n-word, wet-back, chinc, or fill in the blank. There is no need for those kind of terms in an intelligent debate.

[Brian Sweat]

46. No, Bible Thumper and Holy Roller refer to specific types of Christians.

Bible Thumper refers hard core Southern Babtists and Holy Rollers refers to Pentacostals who handle snakes and speak in tongues. If you choose in imput your own definition on a word, then assume that definition applies to you and then become offended, that is your problem.

[Dob Bole]

61. Oh ok...well it's ok to stereotype "THOSE Christians"

First of all, if you're ignorant of a subject you should say nothing. Pentecostals use snakes? How many times have you seen Al Sharpton accompanied by a snake? Second of all, I live near President Carter, a Baptist. I think I'll go over to his house and call him a "Bible Thumping Asshole" and see how fast I get raped by the Secret Service. It will be fun!

Once again, you are promoting stereotypes. I don't know where got them from. Honestly, I don't have the time to care, either.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

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

[Dob Bole]

172. I don't think I quoted you at all...

I was speaking to a certain mentality, to be sure.

Fine, you must define "hard core," then. If it means serious, then you should come to my region and meet all the hard core Southern Baptist Democrats. Secondly, I know of Appalacian churches who handle snakes. Typically, they are not aligned with the Pentecostals, however.

If I did misquote you on anything, I am sorry. I currently debating on about 10 fronts. As an ex-Atheist, I enjoy debating, and it is not my intention to be, as you say, "willingly ignorant" of anything.

[drdigi420]

64. EXACTLY!

man, the fundies cant see this because everything is black n white, with us or against us, god is infallable to them

[Muddleoftheroad]

113. Actually yes, God IS infallible to us

You on the other hand...

[Malva Zebrina]

30. why should those who do not believe and who want to contribute to the

thread, be expected to NOT say what they believe. Attitudes sometimes are so ingrained--respect for beliefs goes both ways. To expect someone to just shut up about what they believe because religions traditionsally demands "respect" and we have all been taught since childhood to "respect" religion, even if that means we must bite out tongues, but those who are believers can wax ad infinitum about their beliefs.

I think you are wrong on this one, Muddle. You are failing to see the two way street.

[Dob Bole]

40. Well I agree with him...

You're right, it IS a two-way street. But you never see us saying

"Athiests clearly have some sort of intellectual handicap, and are weak and/or stupid. Stalin killed 7 million Jews; therefore, all atheists are warlike, raving lunatics and need to all live in Alabama."

Why? Because this is called a STEREOTYPE and serves no purpose other than singling out a group of people for persecution. If it's a two-way street, then we need to start using the other lane or there will be a lot more wrecks to come.

[Az]

53. Belief and institutions

There has never been an uprising of independent theists free of dogmatic authoratative churches that swept across a nation killing all that disagree with them. The same is true for atheists. It takes institutions to organize war and hatred. Communism provides such a dogma for nontheistic institutions and the Vatican(not singling out the Catholics) has in the past provided the structure for theistic institutions.

Dogmatic institutions carry with them inherant dangers. Because they decree what people are to believe they can bring about great changes. Both for ill and for good. It is this organized structure that lends belief such a frightening visage for some. It is not the inherant message. It is that the message can be tuned to fit whatever the authority decides it needs.

[Malva Zebrina]

57. there may be a certain amount ot that

there are so many posters on these boards, and the mods would delete that in an instant--whereas posts desribing Christians as whacko and fundies all on the order of a Robertson or Falwell or R J Rushdooney seems to be accepted because those Christians are not "real" Christians.

Stereostypes should be avoided by all means. That is my complaint about the use of "fundies" and other derogatory tersm re the Christian fundamentalists.

It is not, however a sterotype if there is fact to back up the statement.

We know that not every person in the known territories can be exactly like the other, but if there is fact of certain historical happenings, say, for instance, the witch hunting and hangings in Salem, then there is nothing wrong imo, in saying it. And if there is fact somewhere that shows that a majority of the people in the town of Salem believed in that religiously motivated happening, then there is nothing wrong with stating that.

There can, actually be an energetic debate if stereotypes are avoided and facts are stated. I do not find that threatening.

[Lars39]

75. So what phrase would you prefer we use to describe the

insanely religious? You talk it up one side and down the other, but I have yet to read what word you would actually prefer us to say.

[Malva Zebrina]

119. Well

you just said it--an insanely religious person would describe it nicely, although there might be something to think about re the word "insane" It is true that there is a group of persons who are mentally ill that have persistent religious delusions and hallucinations--it is not unusual in some types of schizophrenia, for people to think they are Saint Paul, or some other saint, and to insist that the voice they hear is god talking to them.

Perhaps they, those "religiously insane" do not believe as you, and in your mind that is "insanely religious" but, since I do not believe in any gods, I am in the postition to be looking in from the outside and detached and to be honest, more than not, it looks and sounds to me like hypocrisy most of the time.

[Lars39]

162. Well...

I debated over whether to phrase it as *religiously insane* or *insanely religious*. I'm agnostic, leaning heavily towards atheism at this point, so I don't think I'm being hypocritical. Somehow I think I'd get flamed for using either description. :)

[noiretextatique]

63. that's just NOT true

i've seen blowhards and stererotypers on both side of the debate. neither side is that saintly, imho.

[Bake]

81. It's called mutual respect and common courtesy

I don't think anybody here tries to force his/her beliefs on you. And those of us here on DU who are Christians generally are respectful of the positions of others. If you can't grant us the same courtesy, then I suppose I must acknowledge your obvious superiority.

Bake

[Cary]

16. No, DrWeird. I didn't even see those posts.

I'm responding to a DUer who complained about his religion being bashed. As a non-Christian, myself, it occurred to me that I might be playing a part in that.

It also occurred to me that there is a huge difference between the religious right and the Christians who identify with us. I have no reason to waste my time disagreeing with with the Christians here, since I generally agree with them. I'd much rather spend my time disagreeing with the Christians over there.

So I disagree with you that I don't want to disagree with people who are disagreeable. But we can agree to disagree, if that suits you better.

Did you get that? ;-)

[DrWeird]

25. I DISAGREE!

Actually, no, I didn't get it. So I'll just disagree to agree.

[Malva Zebrina]

20. How about those "whacko fundies"?

Is that considered Christian bashing?

[salin]

33. imo, no, as it seperates

out a subset... even among fundies ... you know.. talkin' about the wacko ones...

[Malva Zebrina]

41. heh

:hi: You are right Salin, but I think you know what I mean and are attempting to justify the obvious disrespect for the Christian fundamentalists that is constantly being posted here .

[salin]

51. heh

I do at times refer to them - but always (being somewhat polite) try to seperate it out - to those that are part of the politicized religious right movement. Have to be able to refer to the group somehow, really, as they have become a powerful political group. Not to mention how dangerous - when given power ala John Ashcroft. But it is important to note that there are some fundamentalist churches who reject the politicization of their religion - and are very critical of groups like the Christian Coalition.

[Blue_Chill]

37. athiests are destroying society

that's just my opinion.........so if you don't like it take it up with DrWeird.

get it?
(I have no problem with atheists just trying to make a point)

[Forkboy]

42. That's fair

I welcome your opinion.

[Malva Zebrina]

43. If you can back up that statement with fact, I will be more than happy

to debate the issue with you. I mean that.

It may be your opinion but it certainly is not an educated opinion.

[Blue_Chill]

56. How well did Mao do in China?

Now you can tell about how it had nothing to do with his athiesm while blaming so many blame Bush's idiocy on his faith. Have fun.

[DrWeird]

69. I have never seen anybody blame Bush's idiocy on his faith.

Perhaps on his distinct lack of honest christianity, his gross distortions of christ's message, etc.

[Malva Zebrina]

89. I honestly do not know

how Mao did and am not much up on Chinese History. It could not have been worse than Bush or Hitler or any other aggressive evil leader. Because you think Mao was evil, has not much to do with atheism.

China has never been a Christian country but has been more along the lines of following the Buddhist philosopy and seem to have survived quite nicely over centuries and centuries and centuries doing so. Today's leaders of China could probably also be called atheists if they are Buddhists--there is not a god worshipped in Buddhism.

China never pre-emptively attacked another soverign nation or declared war on another nation that I can think of either. It has also made important contributions to the world over thousands of years. Many of the sayings of Confucious remain universal words of wisdom.

[AngryAmish]

152. If you think China never attacked anyone...

then you really do not know much about Chinese history. Over three thousand years of blood and gore. Just like the West.

In fact, if you think that peace and love exists everywhere until Western cultures came in contact with them it may be considered a subtle form of racism. (I do not think you are an intentional bigot). I think it could be a racist notion to think that non-whites are not capable of rapacity or evil. There are plenty of baddies throughout history of all shapes, creeds and colors.

[Malva Zebrina]

168. Which country did China invade or which country did China

declare war upon? I really would like to know. I am not talking about ancient times, where tribal warfare existed within the territory amongst all the different warlords, but let us say within realtively modern times when nations were established as city states disbanded as the local hub of politics. Which country did China declare war on and invade?

[Forkboy]

178. Tibet comes instantly to mind

[Blue_Chill]

187. So I take it you don't know who Mao is?

www.google.com

[AngryAmish]

191. China was an empire

That is why its leader was known as ... wait for it... an Emperor. There were many different dynasties, foreign invaders, internal coups, but for the vast majority of China's history there has been an Emperor. Please, there are many good, popular books on Chinese history available from Amazon. Please avail yourself.

Also, China invaded Vietnam for about a week in 1979.

[Indiana Democrat]

71. Look up the true meaning of "Christain".

Then compare that meaning to those who commit the VAST majority of crime in America. I'll guarantee you they won't be true Christains...They'll be athiests.

That's not to condemn all athiests, of course...But true "Christains" lead a Christ Like existance.

[Malva Zebrina]

145. You are absolutely wrong on that

A study by Barna has revealed that the largest number of prisoners in our prison system is Christian. I believe it is something like 80 percent. Less than one percent are athiests. Another study reveals that the divorce rate is higher in Christians than in atheists and actually atheists had the lowest divorce rate of all groups studied.

If you are going to make blanket statements like that, I think it would be a good idea to back up the assertion with some facts.

I am not sure what a Christ like existence is or means to you. I see no difference in the life I lead compared to any Christian.

[DrWeird]

47. Well if you had said something like

"radical atheists" are destroying society, or "fundamentalist atheists are destroying society," or "communists are destroying society" I simply would have asked you to back up your statements.

I wouldn't have gone all apeshite and cried bigotry and gotten a martyr complex like so many other people do.

[Blue_Chill]

54. Since when has cloud being, jeebus, religion is for the weak, etc

been specific?

It's not so don't ask for anyone else to be specific.

[DrWeird]

65. What the hell are you talking about?

"Jeebus" is a joke from the simpsons. A good one too.

"Religion is for the weak" is arguable and feel free to hit alert. Although it sounds an awful lot like "religion is the opiate of the masses," which is an opinion and I say feel free to debate it if you want.

As for "cloud being" I don't know. Use it in a sentence.

As for specificity, if it isn't an attack on christianity specifically, how is it a problem?

[Indiana Democrat]

79. Atheism is for the decadent.

Hey...That's "Arguable", isn't it?

[DrWeird]

83. I meant "arguable"

in the sense of whether or not it's bashing, not if it's factually valid.

[Indiana Democrat]

105. Me too.

[drdigi420]

74. fine, and you can say that all you want

but you wont allow us the same freedom

some ppl are just too thin skinned

[Muddleoftheroad]

122. Funny how bigotry and abuse do that to you

[liberalpress]

44. I hate the word "myth"..

...simply because it has so much negativity attached. In the truest sense of the word it means "epic story." It can be true, but most people don't accept that connotation. I believe, for example, I can call the story of creation in Genesis he Bible's "Creation Myth" and not necessarily doubt its veracity.

[Skittles]

50. of course it is

if you don't believe what they believe you are BASHING.

[DrWeird]

73. Bingo.

I say "bash" away.

[Blue_Chill]

88. nonsense

I don't care if you worship peanuts. But when you start insulting christianity by calling our god a 'cloud being' and our faith 'for idiots' then you are bashing.

[Skittles]

176. I get accused of bashing by saying I just don't want religion shoved at me

nt

[Capn Sunshine]

114. If you think Pat Robertson talks to God

this may not be the board for you to participate in. because THAT sort of blatant insult is hardly Christian,though it purports to be, and I will bash that whenever I please.

[salin]

9. I think the problem

arises when folks don't distinguish between all Christians... and the politicized (thanks to Pat Robertson) fundamentalist religious right. Not all Christians, not even all fundamentalists are engaged in the brutal culture wars headed by the likes of John Ashcroft. Sometimes distinguishing between groups- or not making allowances for the fact that even groups like the politicized fundamentalist religious right are not monolithic and there is a divergence of thought and behavior among individuals within that group.

[Dob Bole]

15. Remember "Holy Joe?" -Now you're calling Christians Anti-Semitic

He got the same treatment and name-calling, though Jewish. What's ironic is that the same people who did that are now calling us Christians anti-Semitic. The world is weird.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

45. Lieberman was the official scapegoat on DU for a long time

and was raked over the coals for talking about his religion in public, and trying to find common ground between religious people in the Democratic party. Now there is plenty to ridicule Lieberman over, and I'd never vote for him certainly, but "Holy Joe" has a voting record as liberal as Kerry's certainly. Why?

[drdigi420]

78. lieberman was on the god squad

anyone that lets religion dominate their life is not fit to make decisions that affect non-religious ppl

[Forkboy]

112. To be fair,you can turn that arguement around easily

anyone that lets atheism dominate thier life is not fit to make decisions that affect religious people.

[Indiana Democrat]

18. Thank you.

And anyone using the term "Fundie" can cram it. (No, I'm obviously not a STRICT Christian).

[A HERETIC I AM]

91. Then i suppose I'll be one to "cram it"

I use the term "fundy" all the time to describe people who consider themselves Bible Literalists. It is merely shorthand for "Fundamentalist".
Anyone who thinks the bible is the inerrant word of a supernatural, transcendent deity has, in my opinion, not researched the history of that book enough to discover that it was indeed written by MEN (and in some small parts, women) and that it has been RE-written every couple of hundred years or so either through editing, expurgation or direct reinterpretation of text. It is also a fact that the books that make up the Canon weren't amiably arrived at. Folks fought over the contents for their own purposes for decades if not centuries. And many of those fights were terribly bloody and lasted for years.

If the bible is inerrant then the person that holds that point of view must admit that donkeys and snakes actually talked, sticks turned into snakes, the entire globe was covered with water several miles higher than current sea level, bats are birds and that the entire diversity of the human race is the result of the offspring of one old drunkard boat builder, his sons, their wives and his incestuous daughters and that diversity developed in something less than 6000 years.
The "Holy Bible" (from "Helios Biblia, or SOLAR BOOK) is, for lack of a gentler way of putting it, a story book, NOT an historical account.

Does it have great lessons that should be taught? Yes, of course.
Is it useful for guiding one through life? Yes, it is, but so are the Bhagavad Ghita (sp?), the Teachings of Buddha, The Koran and any number of other philosophical and spiritual texts.

Christians demand respect for their beliefs. Here is my take on that:
I have said this before on this board and i think many of the nonreligious on DU might agree with me:
If your religion makes you a better person, if it makes you more compassionate, more caring, happier and charitable then i AM ALL FOR IT!

Unfortunately, this is NOT the case with many Americans who call themselves "Christians"
In many ways, religions in general and Christianity in particular seem to teach new and improved ways to hate your fellow man.

Lastly this for those on DU that consider Christianity to be the only true path. If accepting Christ as your Saviour is the ONLY way one can enter eternal paradise and the alternative is eternal damnation, what about the innocent, unaware south sea islander or the native in the center of the Amazon jungle that has never heard of Christ? He lives a decent life and dies. Does he go to hell? It isn't his fault that he hadn't heard of Christ. If you believe God is control of and knows everything, then God apparently INTENTIONALLY puts humans into situations where their ONLY destiny is eternal torment.

That makes the God of Abraham little more than a vindictive, vengeful, spiteful entity. Those are HUMAN traits, NOT the traits of a supposedly "Loving" god.

Don't suspend every ounce of your credulity and skepticism merely because doing so makes you a little uncomfortable.

[Indiana Democrat]

126. If you're one...

...then fine!!

[a_random_joel]

19. An open apology to Bears fans

Sorry to get off subject, but I noticed your avatar. Da Bears!

[Cary]

24. And we need all of the apologies we can get!!!!

[damnyankee2601]

23. Thank you.

I'm one of the ones being bashed, and I just bash back. But it's good to know some of my attackers can get out of their own dogma.

[Cary]

31. Yankee, I hope I am not one of the bashers.

Which is what precipitated my post.

[damnyankee2601]

34. Don't worry about it.

A true Christian forgives. I strive for that.

[Sinistrous]

36. No group should be inoculated against criticism.

Even the profound and beautiful teachings of Jesus should be open to debate. Certainly the practices and preachings of those who pervert the teachings of Jesus to support their own sordid agendas are a valid subject for "bashing".

I cannot disagree more vehemently that any person or group that adorns themselves with the mantle of "christian" is, by that fact, never to be criticized.

If this is not what you are advocating, then what the hell are you saying?

[Cary]

49. Someone else here said it already, Sinister.

It is possible to go over the line. Just as it's possible to be anti-Semitic, it's possible to be anti-Christian.

Some fellow DUers expressed a sentiment that sounded a lot like the way I feel when someone goes over the line about Jews. I empathized.

What's wrong with that?

And believe me when I tell you I'm no wimp.

[Sinistrous]

68. Then you need to define where the *line* is

and specify what falls on one side and what falls on the other. I just re-read your initial post and, as written, you seem to be advocating suspension of all criticism of things and persons Christian.

[Deb-Ter]

60. Debate....yes,

"the practices and preachings of those who pervert the teachings of Jesus should be open to debate"

Everything is open for debate, but I only take offense when it resorts to name calling and blanket statements about Christians. These include 'Jesus Freaks', 'being gap-toothed and living in Georgia', etc.

[Az]

38. Religion as a system

Religions are systems which gather people together in order to propogate its particular teachings. They can exhibit any number of tactics and means of promoting their particular positions. Sometimes their tactics are more aggressive than others.

Christianity in general is one of the faster spreading religions on the planet. Its means of propogating are far more aggressive than many other religions. There are certainly other religions that share the aggressive nature of Christianity but the it has certainly been succesful in spreading its reach.

It is this aggressive nature of the religion in general that makes it a target for many in society. Because it has all manner of pressing itself into society it will occaisionally step on some toes (and has historically done far worse than that). We are not met with evangelyzing Buddhists. We do not have to deal with Taoists on TV promoting their beliefs. We do not see Shintoists advancing their causes in the courts of our lands.

The press of the activist nature of Christianity represents a great threat to many people. This force has lead to great destruction in the past and many fear the genie will be let out of the bottle once again. Thus when Christians rejoice publically about some aspect of their faith being celebrated it can sometimes come down on others with a harder blow than was intended.

Add into this mix the fact that with its rapid spread Christianity has fractured into a 1000+ different sects. Each with its own teachings and biases. To those not within the fold it can seem like an all encompassing threat. Learning to distinguish which variety of Christian you are dealing with can easily become over bearing. The tendency is to simply resort to the easiest label. And this brings all the baggage of all the sects into the perception of the individual.

Nonchristians need to take the time to get to know who they are talking to. Simply seeing the cross dangling from their neck and making assumptions based on this ignores the individual. However the Christians must be aware of the history both good and bad that comes with their beliefs. If you choose to champion a belief that has as much baggage as this faith then you must expect those that have suffered at the hands of others professing to be Christian to have a reaction to your professed belief.

[A HERETIC I AM]

116. WELL SAID!!!!!!!!

:toast: :thumbsup:


LOUD APPLAUSE

[Armand]

Cary...I accept your apology.

You're a good man/woman. :thumbsup:

I just got so frustrated by people bashing Christianity as a whole when they should have been bashing the few who make it look bad. I have never once bashed another person's beliefs/values/traditions. Actually, I am very accepting of other people's views.

It also made me sad to see my fellow liberals bashing fellow liberals over beliefs they hold dear to them. It was one or two people who did, not everyone here on the DU.

I would also like to apologize if I've been rubbed off right away as an asshole. I tend to be one when I'm pissed...likewise most other people.

[YNGW]

52. I appreciate your apology.

I'm not one you believe you have offended, but quite frankly I don't let it bother me. I figure if they're only defense of their position is to belittle what they don't understand, then that's their problem.

[Jose Diablo]

76. Not sure an apology is needed

I am a Christian, but it doesn't bother me if others bash christianity, the bible or anything about religion.

I am comfortable with what I believe.

About that NASCAR stuff though, that hurts. ouch

:D

[markses]

77. The Lord be with you

And also with you
We lift up our hearts
We lift them up to the Lord

Some (note extistential quantifier) Christians on these boards think it's like being thrown to the lions when another poster says that a movie sucks. Suffer the little children to come unto me....:eyes:

[noiretextatique]

85. i concede nothing to conservatives

imho, the rw calls "christian bashing" is simply the lack of reverence for their beliefs some feel they deserve. i think it's unrealistic to expect that type of reverance from non-belivers or questioners. on the other hand, civility does do wonders for discourse.

[drdigi420]

109. sometimes civility squelches discourse

[noiretextatique]

124. i agree with you

actually...i think it's highly overrated :shrug: sometimes a good agrument does more to shift consciousness and increase understanding than all the civility in the world.

[salin]

146. I never viewed the two as mutually exclusive

civil... discourse. All a matter of how we choose to speak/frame our debates and disagreements.

[Muddleoftheroad]

136. Yeah, and incivility is getting you so far here

This has become the wedge issue that the right will destroy us with.

If that is the case, so be it. I will NEVER vote for a radical Godless candidate.

[noiretextatique]

142. that's a tad hysterical

both sides on this debate need to chill the fuck out. christians: do not expect respect or reverance for your beliefs from athiests. if your faith is strong...what do you care what others think anwyay?
athiests: why bother?
peace to all.

[Muddleoftheroad]

150. We are past chilling out

Things are actually WORSE than they were before DU banned religious discussions. Many of the religious DU posters are fed up with this. So, no, we will not chill out.

Just as I don't ignore it when I walk down the street and someone calls me a, "nigger," I will not ignore this abuse either.

[salin]

149. It begs to be asked

what or who (ex.?) would be a "Radical Godless" candidate?

[Forkboy]

163. we'll let you know

if one ever comes along :)

[salin]

189. wait... i know...

:think:

Ralph Nader?!

oh.. got confused about which discussion I was in ;-)

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

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

[Brian Sweat]

153. You have to understand

Christians are an oppressed group in this country.

They are not allowed to build houses of worship on every corner.

They churches are taxed at an incredible rate.

There are no TV channels or even programs dedicated to Christian broadcasting.

A politician must keep his Christian beliefs a secret or he will have no chance of being elected while atheists control every branch of every level of government.

They are not allowed to celebrate their religious holidays.

The oppression of Christians in America is all encompassing.

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

180. well jeez

I can't even blame mine on toking :shrug:

[Forkboy]

137. What a fun thread!

I bet it gets locked soon...all the fun ones do :-(

[Tinoire]

143. Thank you. I don't remember your posts but you just shot WAAAY up

in my book.

It takes a big person to care about respecting other people's spiritual beliefs and accepting that even if you don't agree with them, you have to respect those beliefs.

There's waaay too much religion bashing on the Left. Every election we sit back and wonder why we keep getting less and less of the religious vote.

If this week hasn't clued anyone in, I don't know what will.

Thank you Cary.

[noiretextatique]

155. why do you HAVE TO respect religious beliefs?

for example...do you have respect for the beliefs of people who practice voodun or santeria?
should i respect the beliefs of mormons who still believe black people don't have souls? or perhaps...the beliefs of christians during the time of slavery who thought the bible justified the enslavement of africans? and what about the religious beliefs of jerry falwell or george bush...do i HAVE TO respect their religious beliefs also?
i respect people, and i respect you, my friend and ally, but that doesn't mean i have to respect anyone's religious beliefs.

what i do respect is consistency, integrity and honesty...and those who do not espouse harm in their religious beliefs get my respect.

[Malva Zebrina]

177. excellent post

because we have been taught to do so in this country, as children even. That virtually every religion demonizes atheists makes no difference.

A reflective person would consider what they have been taught about other people who have perhaps been born to atheist parents or who have thought about religion further than the words in the bible or the words in a catechism and have come to a raional conclusion.

For this, the religions demonize them , teaching young children the evilness of atheism. These learned beliefs are hard to shed. But if one is refective, a thinker, and knows themself, they could take that path toward parsing it all out.

Those are the religious persons I admire.

[Blue_Chill]

186. By that logic why does anyone have to respect anything?

Sorry but for the sake of the community you can't insult everyone you disagree with.

[Malva Zebrina]

190. I am answering the question

why do we have to respect etc etc.

my answer is because we have been taught to respect religion, for the most part, Christianity, since childhood. I agree with the poster that we do not need to respect every thing we have been taught to, especially when it demonizes me.

That has nothing to do with the metaphysics of "respect" The propostion that there would be no respect in any catagory, if we did not respect everyone's religion is absurd-- even silly.

Most things we respect are learned or taught.

In other cultures, that which they "respect" is what they learned or have been taught. Some cultures "respect" cannibalism and etc. You get the gist, I hope.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

148. Gosh what to say......another multifactorial problem with no happy medium

RE: The bible - in many respects, the bible is a book of parables that has evolved according to who is publishing it. Certain language in the bible was inserted in the 50's to create theexact disharmony we see everyday. Wycliffe, IIRC the world's largest bible publisher made sure of that.

Then, of course we see creationism rearing it's head and replacing scientific inquiry which further stands to divide and we see a party that has co-opted the bible and made a divisive issue of the Ten Commandments even though they are willing to hang them in the nation's business school (ala Skilling, worship of free market ideology versus Christ's sermon on the mound) The Defense Policy board (thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not kill) and political campaigns (Take the beam out of thine own eye)

We have people jockeying for the position that religion CAUSES war rather than that the religious are USED by the powerful and those SEEKING power to CAUSE wars that appear religous at their roots and are not.

When people generalize....there are bound to be associations to false causes and misinterpretations.

Live and let live gets sidelined for Live and let die.

[Muddleoftheroad]

154. A bad sign

It is a bad sign that your attempt to honestly and openly address the subject has resulted in flame wars.

Please do not blame yourself.

And thank you again for trying.

I would say that things have gone too far for there to be a compromise on this issue.

(Edit for silly typo.)

[noiretextatique]

161. get off the cross, would you?

everything is a flame-war here...this is not exception.

[Az]

164. Hope and spelling

Um its there not their :evilgrin: Sorry, had to.

Yes there are idiots on both sides of the issue. As you do not wish us to lump all beleivers in the same boat do not lump all nonbelievers in the same group. Hold onto hope that those of us willing to dialog can do so. We may fail sometimes to find common ground but seeing as how it is the same world we both live in sooner or later we can find things to agree on.

[Malva Zebrina]

188. AZ, you have been relentless is attempting to reach common

ground with all human beings, even in the face of all the negative comments. I searched the board for another who is trying to reach some common ground with others, who has expressed love, but see none.

I share your will and hope, but I admit I am not as hopeful as yourself or perhaps, in these days and time, the freedoms we enjoyed with the guarantee of separation of church and state, is seriously in jeapardy with the arrival of the Reconstructionist way of religion, which many powerful men and women in our government seem to have embraced.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

170. In the arena of beliefs there is no compromise

I am not saying this to flame. Faith by its nature implies certitude where there is no evidence of truth...and both sides cannot claim evidence of truth..it is a matter of faith that God does exist as much as it is a matter of faith that God doesn't since science can only answer within the framework it asks the question.

I have grown to expect that when this subject arises on DU there will be honest inquiries and antagonistic asses on both sides...kind of like the GD 04 forum only with different candidates. :D

[salin]

193. lol - classic summary

and oh so true!

[Synthesis]

166. I saw your apology in the other thread...

but I'll respond to this one. I accept the apology, but I wasn't offended.

[Moderator]

194. Locking

At least until some of the worst flames can be deleted

(No problem with the opening post, just some of the following)