Tolerance of Christianity on DU

[Superfly]

Do you think that, as a whole, and with respect only to Christians/Christianity, do you believe DU to be a welcome place to discuss the Christain faith or a hostile one?

Or, do you believe that DU is not the appropriate place to discuss Christianity or Christian issues?

[vi5]

1. People can discuss what they want....

But so too are people free to respond how they want. Same thing if someone posts any other thing that falls under the realm of opinion. If someone can't take differences of opinion or wants special treatment because of their opinions then they shouldn't post about it.

It's all rather simple.

[Skittles]

7. exactly

people who just want unquestioning support for their beliefs need to go elsewhere - like church

[jus_the_facts]

14. Yep....that's the gist of it....

.....there was damn good reasoning why it's the LAW to keep these issues out of U.S. POLITICS!! :thumbsup:

[sangha]

34. You people should read the rules

On DU, you're not allowed to say whatever you like

[jus_the_facts]

55. REALLY....that must be why so many comments get deleted....

.....seen many made by YOU people that fall into that catagory....some of mine as well no less......s'why there are moderators here to enforce THE RULES! :eyes:

[sangha]

66. "YOU people"???

Which people?

[jus_the_facts]

74. just using YOUR own words to prove a point.....

.....YOU said..."YOU PEOPLE should read the rules." Just pointing out that those rules get broken by us all at some point or other eventually...the same rules that you stated exist here....like WE PEOPLE didn't know this already...that's all.

[sangha]

134. Huh?

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the phrase "you people". I do realize that it is sometimes use in a derogatory way, but it is not necessarily derogatory.

That's why I asked. When I used the phrase, it was in response to particular post. I thought it would be obvious that the phrase was reference to that poster, and the two before who said something like "They can say whatever they want" since my post directly addressed what they had said.

IOW, by "you people", I meant the people who think they can say whatever they want on DU.

Unless you meant "people who know they can't say whatever they want" when you said "You people", and i don't think you did, I don't get your point. Saying "you people" does not break the rules.

like WE PEOPLE didn't know this already...that's all.

Since people were saying they could discuss whatever they want, I don't know why you think I should have assumed that they knew this.

[jus_the_facts]

144. seems you didn't post to who you meant to post to then......

....but since it was attached to my post...it seemed you WERE referring to what I said...which if you re-read it said nothing at all about saying whatever you want to say or about the rules around here....it was in context with what the topic of the thread introduced...the topic of religion....so it's not to difficult to see where the digression took place here is it?

[chiburb]

180. Wow, Sangha! You could write for Rummy!

:-)

[drdigi420]

120. i thought church was where they went

to compare clothing

[drdigi420]

121. not here they cant

if youve got some free time, you can read the ever growing list of rules for discussing stuff here

[noiretextatique]

2. other: just like any other topic

imho.

[Love Bug]

3. Not an appropriate place to discuss religion EXCEPT

where it or it's followers relate to politics. In that case, DU rules of civility should apply.

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. Civility

That would be a welcome change.

[Love Bug]

25. Well, yeah

I shoulda put "civility" in quotes!

[FreeperSlayer]

4. Jeebus. Daddy always told me to avoid...

...discussing religion, politics, and history. He was right.

[ET Awful]

10. Reminds me of a joke I heard in the eighties. . . .

This guy walks into a bar has a beer, looks at the guy next to him and says "can you believe that goddamn Reagan and what he's done to this country?"

The bartender stops him and says "I'm sorry, we don't allow political discussin in this bar, it causes too many fights."

The guy says "Oh, sorry, can you believe what the damned pope said today. . "

The bartender stops him again and says "we don't allow talk about religion either, it causes too many fights."

The guy looks at the bartender and says "Well, can I talk about sex?"

The bartender gets a big grin and says "Of course you can."

So the guy says "Good, then FUCK YOU!" and walks out :).

:) :) :)

[Chicago Democrat]

5. Its hostile, but that is appropriate. - I choose "other"

Especially when talking about religion in a single party forum. We should assail all Pontification and welcome diversity. When Religion and Politics cross, watch out; expect hostility and that's appropriate.

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. Welcome diversity, but be hostile to it?

You welcome diversity YOU want, not real diversity.

Religion and politics cross because many of us who vote are also religious. Get a clue, we vote our consciences and THAT is based on our faith.

[BigDaddyLove]

9. Then why is there such a fervor over 'Fundie' types........

when they too vote based on their faith?

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. No furor from me

People vote for lots of reasons. I believe the quote is: "all politics are local."

[BigDaddyLove]

21. I was only asking generally..........

I just find it interesting that whenever it's found out that a person or group is what might be considered 'Christian', many seem to automatically dismiss their political positions because they assume that 'those types' all believe and vote monolithically.

[Bake]

89. Because I believe their faith is uninformed

Assuming the "they" we're talking about is RW Christians, I believe their view of Christianity is --not uninformed -- but MISinformed.

Bake

[Forkboy]

13. Yep,people aren't civil enough

[Chicago Democrat]

22. Religion shouldn't be injected in policy debate.

That's what fanatics do. Public policy discussions should be religion neutral. Otherwise its a free-for-all that will lead to civil war. Political parties might as well not exist, if there is a damn religion test for "who is a Democrat". That is why the founding fathers put in the Constitution the Establishment Clause, which prohibits any action by government that could be interpreted as favoring one religion over another.

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. It's part of EVERY policy debate

Policy decisions are based on beliefs. Our beliefs, for most of us in the U.S., start with our religion.

I am against favoring one religion over another. But on many issues, the mainstream religions agree.

[noiretextatique]

29. what about the non-mainstreams religions?

do they even get a voice at the table? and what about when the mainstream religions don't agree...which one trumps the other?

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. Yes they do

And I don't pretend to speak for them, hence my exclusion.

What trumps the other in our society is votes.

[noiretextatique]

57. no , they actually don't

the lesser religions are pretty much not considered.
and as we all know by now, voting (and vote counting) can be manipulated...so much for the trump card.

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. They count based on how many members they have

Christianity is part of who I am. I am guessing (note the word) that their beliefs are also part of who they are and impact them in similar ways.

[Exultant Democracy]

87. The tyranny of the majority

The founding fathers step up our country as they did to try to insure that large groups (Christians for example) could not trump the rights of smaller groups (gays for example.) If the majority is allowed to run the country as they see fit then we might as well forget about freedom. Our safe guards against majority rule (separation of powers both federally and across the branches of government)are what protect us from turning into another Nazi Germany.

[Blue_Chill]

126. You are wrong

This nation was NOT built to stop majority rule. It was built to keep certain rights from being stolen away by the majority. Outside those things defined in the constitution however it is completely majority rule.

[Exultant Democracy]

138. You should read the federalist papers

The constitution was constructed to stop majority rule in many cases. For example lets say that every state in the union decided to take evolution out of their texts books except for Road Island. Despite the fact that the vast majority believe that evolution should not be in texts books they can not by virtue of our constitution impose their view on Road Island, the minority.

The constitution is in fact an organ designed to prevent the unchecked rule of the majority, and in many cases flat out prevent majority rule. If I was wrong as you claim then our country would be a direct democracy with only a national government.

[Muddleoftheroad]

140. The key word is unchecked

The majority still rules, there are checks and balances.

[Exultant Democracy]

142. Not in the case of my scenario

no matter what the majority are unable to take evolution out of Road Island's texts books. Majority rule is a myth, the cooperation of the minority is implicit in the form of our government.

My scenario is just a very simple one, there are many more where the majority is absolutely prevented from ruling.

Edit: Read the federalist papers, the fifty-first is very pertinent to this discussion. I'll search for a link.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed51.htm
That is a small glimps, but if you read them all my point becomes very clear.

[Muddleoftheroad]

148. Actually, it isn't that way

If the majority votes on something, it wends itself through the courts. If they decide it is that way, it is that way.

Also, the majority can and has amended the Constitution.

[Exultant Democracy]

159. In my scenario the majority can never impose themselves upon

the minority without fundamental basic changes that would get ride of the federal system. If they were to get ride of the federal system then in an absolutely literal way we would no longer be the United States, because the state would not longer have any meaning. Therefor I am correct in my statement.

[Muddleoftheroad]

161. No you are not

The system, despite its checks and balances, has always been rule of the majority. In the past various minorities -- blacks, women, heck even Irish, suffered as a result.

[Exultant Democracy]

168. If I am wrong then address my scenario

if you can explain how the rest of the country can take the word evolution out of the Texts books of Road Island while still remaining the United States, then Paul Gewirtz had better find a new job, because you are obviously the foremost scholar on the United States Constitution.

The basic fact is that the framers of the constitution did not believe in the rule of the majority. If they did we would not have an appointed judiciary, and we would not have any states rights. If in my scenario the United States was to amend the constitution in order to remove the word evolution from the Road Island text books it would cause a constitutional conflict wherein the document would become self contradictory, and the federal system would be completely dismantled.

If the federal system is dismantled, and the constitution is degraded to be worth less then a share in Enron, then the United State would cease to exist.

Since the birth of our union the name of the game has been compromise and implicate acceptance by the minority, not majority rule.

When you point out the horrible conditions that minorities have faced historically in our country you only prove my point. Their mistreatment, no matter what you think is true was always de facto and never de jure. On some occasions the government has been complicate and pretended that these actions were illegal, but if you look at the constitution then it becomes clear that many of our amendments that insure equality are in fact redundant, because the fact that are men are created equal was already made very clear.

If all men are created equal, and it says so in our constitution, then if the majority tries to take rights away from a minority by passing laws, then they are in fact breaking the law. If they try to take rights away from a minority group by altering the constitution then they are creating a constitutional paradox.

Take my scenario and prove it wrong and then I would be more then excited to continue this discussion.

[sangha]

40. Tell that to Martin Luther King Jr

Maybe he should of just kept his mouth shut

[Blue_Chill]

127. So if my religion believes in theft

should we allow people to steal? No, obviously. Thus religion will play a role but is limited. You can't demand people pray or go to church but you can outlaw prostitution if you want depending on what the voters collectively decide.

[noiretextatique]

27. religion and politics also cross

because of the religious right and their influence on the republican party...the party that happens to be in power in this country.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

173. The Church and State dance is the BIGGEST story. DOMINIONIST COUP!

The whipping up of the old anti-semitic and anti-homosexual 'passions' is cover for a very real and documented campaign to make this country into a Hitlerian theocracy fueled by fundamentalist religious passions called 'Dominionism.'
This is the basic model of religion-fueled fascism:
Supreme dictators smiting evil-doers wrathfully with no legal restraints. Sound familar?

'THE CHOSEN FEW' IS BEING MORPHED INTO 'THE MASTER RACE'
THE SAME WAY 'GET OSAMA' WAS MORPHED INTO 'GET SADDAM'! GET IT?

We are living in the closing minutes of a culture war that the American Taliban, called Dominionists, are winning.
'Might Makes Right' is WINNING over 'The Rule of Law.'
The US Constitution (as people power) is being gutted and replaced with the Bible (as king power) so we will all suffer permanent war, not enjoy imminent peace. Have you noticed the body-count in the last three years with no end in sight?

Georgie's brain is much worse than you think and he's being used for terrible purposes. Here's a British clinical psychologist's researched analysis of the boy king. He interviewed Georgie's family, friends and such and determined that he was abused as a child and developed an 'authoritarian personality,' the root of fascism! Read it and weep for him and us.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1033904,00.html
(So George, how do you feel about your mom and dad?)-CLICK

And this personality is being exploited to further the creation of a Hitlerian Theocracy called ‘Dominionism’, which has been going on in this country for the last thirty years. Read it and wonder what the hell we're in for next now that Eugenics is domestic policy and Imperialism is foreign policy.
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_5160.shtml
(God Bless America, The Constitution is Dead)-CLICK

If you'd like to read the full speech of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia back in the dark ages of January 2002 when he said that 'democracy interferes with the Divine Right of Kings and he's doing something about it,' read this and wonder what century we're living in and just what that Constitution was for, anyway.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/scalia.htm
(God's Justice and Ours)-CLICK

How can they get away with it when everyone seems to be pissed off at Georgie and we're supposed to be able to vote the bastard out of our White House? By fixing the electronic voting machines for 'the House.' Read this and decide which country to escape to this fall when Georgie is reinstalled to finish the job he was sent to do-eliminate democracy totally, create a police state, and conquer the world.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm
(Diebold, Electonic Voting, and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy)-CLICK

LATE BREAKING NEWS-FEB. 26 2004
Right now the Dominionists are introducing legislation to replace 'The People' as the authority in our democracy’s Constitution with ‘God’ in a bill called ‘The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004,’ exactly the opposite of what it really is. The legalities of the Christian Theocracy are being used to destroy our laws as if by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

This is not a test! It is absolutely real and happening right now while the media are busy covering gay marriage and Mel Gibson’s bloody crucifixion porn film, ‘The Passion of the Christ.’

“…on February 11 , 2004 Dominionist leaders in congress made their move; they introduced a bill in both houses called The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004. Among the sponsors of the bill are Rep. Robert Aderholt (Alabama), Rep. Michael Pence (Indiana), Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, Sen. Zell Miller (Georgia), Sen. Sam Brownback (Kansas), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (South Carolina).

The House version is H.R. 3799 and the Senate version is S. 2082. The bill limits the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts to hear cases involving “expressions of religious faith by elected or appointed officials.”

Although the claim by its sponsors appears to be that the intention is to prevent the courts from hearing cases involving the Ten Commandments or a Nativity Scene in a public setting from being reviewed, the law is drawn broadly and expressly includes the acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law by an official in his capacity of executing his office.”

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0402/S00172.htm
(The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004)-CLICK

[Tims]

31. I have to agree

Religion is too important a topic to avoid. It effects our lives through the policies of our leaders too much that it must be viewed a political issue appropriate to this board. Even when we attempt to discuss religious issues outside of the political debate (i.e. Mel Gibson) it serves an important tool for forcing us to realize that though we share a general liberal outlook, we can differ significantly in our perception of the world. Any hostility that rears its ugly head is just part and parcel to that learning experence.

[Ladyhawk]

11. I think there should be a theology forum.

I have to deal with fundies every day. Even if they don't say anything, I know what they're thinking because I was one.

I don't mind liberal Christians who don't shove their beliefs down your throat, but at the same time I'm rather pleased this forum has a great percentage of people who value science over superstition. That's sadly lacking elsewhere.

Still, for those who believe in the supernatural, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to post. A theology forum would ease tensions all around. Most of the empirically-minded folks probably wouldn't even go there.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. Superstition

Again, the catchphrases of the anti-religionists remind us how unwelcome many view us AND our votes.

[Ladyhawk]

32. This is only my opinion. You are free to have a different one.

People don't believe the same ways on this forum.

For example, I believe that abortion is, for the most part, wrong. I have a naturalistic view of the world and as of right now, I believe that once the fetus can feel pain, it is wrong to inflict pain.

Most people on this forum probably believe that abortion is a woman's choice up until the time the fetus becomes a neonate.

On the other hand, I also have strong feelings about the so-called "pro-lifers" who only care about the baby when it's inside the mother. They don't care about the single mother. They don't care about what happens to her. They're against teaching birth control. The whole thing is insane.

Quite probably my taste in television and movies is quite different from many on this forum. And my heroes are probably looked down upon.

So what?

Discourse and even criticism shouldn't dissuade you if you really believe in something.

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. Atheism is for morons

"This is only my opinion. You are free to have a different one."

See it doesn't sound very nice flipped around does it?

For the record (and for the mods) that was sarcasm only. I don't give a darn if you believe or don't, that is your business. I do care how you refer to my religion, my God and my faith. Just as I care when people call me "nigger."

[sangha]

46. It's not a matter of opinion

when you describe the religious as "superstitous". It's a slur.

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive

sangha - a religious scientist

[Ladyhawk]

72. Then I apologize. I must have awakened on the wrong side of the bed.

I didn't mean for it to be a slur, but I do view religion as false. Those are my views. "Superstition" was probably too strong a word to use and I apologize. I really didn't mean to offend anyone. I came too close to a personal attack. You see, I'm still recovering from a very abusive religious upbringing and it stings. Sometimes I word things in ways that are offensive. Again, I apologize.

However, saying atheists are morons wasn't terribly nice, either. That's even closer to an ad hominem attack than I got. In fact, it was an ad hominem attack.

The truth is, I really don't care if you believe or not. The important thing is to get the chimp out of office so you have freedom to believe what you deem is true and I have freedom to believe what I deem is true.

Will you accept my apology?

[Muddleoftheroad]

78. My comment about atheists was sarcasm

That's why I said so in the post. But I'll be happy to call a truce -- forgive and forget since you were honest enough to broach that.

[Ladyhawk]

83. Of course. You are right. We need to be on the same side.

[Muddleoftheroad]

84. Amen (That was for humor)

[sangha]

137. Of course I accept your apology

particularly one as gracious as that.

And you have my sympathies concerning your troubled past. If ever you would like to get a different perspective on religion (btw, I am not a Christian or a member of any other organized religion) please feel free to PM me. I've known a number of people who have been stung by their religious upbringing, and I know it can be extremely painful.

[ProfessorGAC]

12. I Said Other

It's neither hostile nor welcoming, and it should be that way. It's a discussion/debate board. People are, within the personal attack rules, allowed to have any opinion they wish.

If one feels those views are hostile toward their beliefs, than so be it. But, if one's skin is so thin that an anonymous poster on an internet forum upsets them, i think they may have some personal esteem issues they might want to have addressed.
The Professor

[blondeatlast]

108. Exactly.

The "alert", "hide," and "ignore" buttons are our friends.

Use them wisely.

[scottcsmith]

15. If it's hostile

I'm sure there are numerous Christian message boards if you really want to discuss your faith in a hostile-free environment.

Discussions that involve politics, religion, or both, are bound to involve differing opinions, some hostile.

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. I used to think we were all on the same side

This issue more than any other has convinced me that is not the case.

[noiretextatique]

38. WHAT ISSUE?!?!

i'm having a real hard time understanding your position, and that of other christians here. is it that your don't feel your views, as a religious person, get enough "respect" in america...or at DU (and internet message board) or what? please help me out, because i just don't get what all the feelings of persecution are about. or is it that you aren't acustommed to having your beliefs challenged, and perhaps even ridiculed?

as a non-christian, i can tell you *I AM HORRIFIED* by the christian fundamentalism espoused by the bush administration and its friends and i don't give a shit if that offends any christian. i can't see why it would offend any REAL follower of the christ.

and why are you so threatened by athiests who challenge your beliefs? another thing i really, truly just don't understand.

and, btw, you can't choose your race, but you can (and do) choose your beliefs, so your N****** analogy in the other thread doesn't work.

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. The treatment of religion and the religious at DU

And the left in general.

The radical anti-religionists are driving away the faithful from the Democratic Party.

There is a strong element of hatred, abuse, bigotry and harassment that religious folks get here and we are, it seems, collectively sick of it.

Actually, some folks can and do choose their race. For centuries, blacks in America endeavored to pass to get along as white folks. Tiger Woods, even today, has created his own micro-ethnic unit.

[noiretextatique]

what *treatment*?

what hatred? abuse? bigotry? harrassment? i want you to cite some specific examples from here at DU and from the left in general.

know anyone who CHOOSES to be black?

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. Today's threads

If you have been following the debate today and don't see what I am talking about, then there is no point debating it with you.

As for choosing, yes I do. I know people who have more than one ethnic background but CHOOSE to call themselves black or African-American.

[noiretextatique]

62. i saw the debate...i didn't see what you are talking about

partly because i do not have a dog in the fight the way you do. fair enuf...some CAN CHOOSE race, but i can't...CAN YOU????????????????????

[Muddleoftheroad]

63. No I can't

I'm kind of chocolatey brown. LOL.

However, I am partially white like many other African-Americans.

[noiretextatique]

71. like most of us...indian, african, white, etc

we are truly a mixed-race people.

as to the other thing...i think it works both ways. i do think christians, in particular, expect a certain type of respect and reverance for their beliefs...because the religion is so common. and i think when challenged (or even ridiculed...i know that does happen here sometimes) the response is often to take offense, perhaps rightly so...but it's also a way not to engage in debate. and i sense that's because: some things (like faith) aren't debatable.
OF COURSE I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ALL CHRISTIANS...just trying to understand why this issue keeps coming up. is it possible that there is an expected reverence, one that is not forthcoming from athiests?

personally, if i was a religious person, i doubt i would engage most of the athiests here...seems pointless to me.
and sometimes i do see a distinct "how dare you" type of attitude from some religious folks. and of course, i think some of the atheists do try to shock and awe more than engage in discourse.

[Muddleoftheroad]

80. Respect

Many people here bend over backwards to give respect to Islam because that is the politically correct thing to do. But they do not accord Christianity the same level of respect.

It is, at very worst, the civil thing to do. I am not Hindu, but I would not seek to disrespect that religion, for instance.

DU urges civility, but I see none of it when Christians or our religion are subject to discussion.

[noiretextatique]

91. i don't see anyone bending over backwards to respect islam

as practiced by the taliban, for example. likewise to chrisitianity as praticed by fundamentalists in this country, some of whom are currently in positions of power in bush, inc.

nor do i respect the opinions of some of my christian friends and relatives on a number of issues...and i am sure they don't respect my views on a number of topics.

the difference is: i do not claim an especial protection for my views because they are based in the religous dogma i adhere to, as do some of my christian friends.

[Pithlet]

114. DU is one of the few places

where atheists and non-believers can feel comfortable and free about discussing their views. This is the only place where I've ever come out and freely discussed my agnosticism. I do believe that many go over the top, and insult other's beliefs, and I think it is wrong when they do so. But, I wouldn't let what happens here at DU paint a picture in your mind of what actually happens out in the political world. I don't think that we non-believers have enough of a voice to drown out or force out too many people out of the Democratic party, considering a majority of them are people of faith.

[markses]

76. If there's one thing I know

It's that I ain't on the same side as you.

[Muddleoftheroad]

82. Oh no?

I guess you plan to vote for Bush in November then?

Because I am not doing so.

[markses]

149. Temporary alliances do not a "side" make

Many of the views you've espoused on these boards make me sick, and I'm sure vice versa. So be honest about it. We ain't on the same side, though we will both - of course - vote against Bush. Like the Red Sox and the Orioles fans both despising the Yankees.

[Muddleoftheroad]

150. That you view it as a temporary alliance

is scary.

[markses]

155. Not to me

And what's wrong with temporary alliances? You and I have very different positions on a whole range of issues, from education, to criminal law, to the death penalty. Why in hell would we have anything but a temporary alliance - both on the same side against Bush. At the end of the day, we have very different conceptions of what constitutes a good society, and what constitutes ethical practice. I will struggle for my vision, and you'll struggle for yours. What's so scary about that? More scary, in my view (and here is a point of difference, to be sure) are permanent alliances, enforced unities.


I'm not at all scared by temporary alliances. Not exactly sure why anyone should be.

[Muddleoftheroad]

162. The GOP

makes permanent alliances. You talk about temporary ones. Is it any wonder they do so well?

[markses]

167. The GOP most certainly does not

Their alliances are fragile on a number of fronts. For example, the alliances between the hard right-wing Christian fundamentalists and the corporate money-base are fraught, and in need of constant supervision to keep from fraying. I'll even provide a specific example: Regarding disclosure of business with Sudan - a move proposed and supported by (the temporarily allied) human rights and Christian organizations (including the Christian right) - and opposed by the Securities Industries Association and Goldman Sachs. Those in favor of disclosure argued from a "moral" perspective, especially with regard to the oppression of Christains in Sudan. Those opposed were a) concerned about any use of financial disclosure for moral purposes (for the fairly obvious reason that global capital stomps around the world in amoral splendor) and b) because such disclosure requirements would dampen foreign involvment in US capital markets. Point being, there is an obvious and perhaps even growing tension between the factions that the GOP has contingently and temporarily assembled into a bloc. All mass political movements (i.e., the new right) are blocs composed of factions over a period of years - the relationships between the factions are neither permanent nor necessary. If political alliances were not temporary, there would be no political change.

As I have already stated (and as you have failed to address, in favor of meaningless little aphorisms), you and I are far from "on the same side" on any number of issues. In fact, on the issue of the death penalty, you are far more on George W. Bush's side than you are on mine. However, I recognize, for the historical, and temporary, purpose of removing Mr. Bush from the office he illegitimately assumed in January 2001, we are on the "same side." But it is a temporary alliance. As are all the alliances the GOP has managed to link up through a variety of tactics.

[LibertyorDeath]

19. For tolerance lets see what kind of example the Pope is setting

VATICAN CITY (AP) - Pope John Paul II called Thursday for the support of the "authentic" Christian family, which he defined as based on marriage between men and women.
The pope did not specifically mention his opposition to gay marriage, but his speech to parish priests in Rome made clear he considers matrimony a bond between a man and a woman.

Recalling his years as a cleric in his native Poland, John Paul said, "I learned some time ago, when I was in Krakow, to live close to couples, to families. I also closely followed the path that led two persons, a man and a woman, to create a family and, with marriage, to become spouses and parents, with all the consequences we know so well."

"Our theme is the family," he told the priests. "Family means: 'And He created them man and woman.'"

The pope urged the priests to teach young people "to understand and appreciate the real meaning of love and to prepare themselves to form authentic Christian families."

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA8YMM95RD.html

[Nashvilliberal]

169. Would you have him ignore the Bible?

"The pope did not specifically mention his opposition to gay marriage, but his speech to parish priests in Rome made clear he considers matrimony a bond between a man and a woman."

I don't see anything "intolerant" here. I'm Catholic, but I believe that gay citizens of the US should have all the rights of any other tax paying citizen, including a state sanctioned marriage contract. But I don't expect the Church's position on gay marriage or heterosexual divorce (certainly a much more prominent issue for Catholics) to change based on American politics.

[Forkboy]

20. I voted a welcome place to discuss it

Some may not like the way the discussion goes though :)

[Ladyhawk]

30. There's nothing wrong with debating ideas.

I personally see religion as antithesis to freedom. However, I respect people's rights to choose to be religious. They should also respect my right to want to be free from religion. Once the subject is broached, the fur is going to fly. It should fly over ideas, not people.

If I think an idea is bullshit, I'm going to say so. I have the right to say so. If you think my idea is bullshit, you have the right to say so.

The line is crossed when people start attacking other people personally. Some people seem to think that when their ideas are attacked, they are being attacked personally. Ideas can change. That's what debate is for.

There are some beliefs I hold so dearly that if someone attacked them, it would feel like a personal attack, so I can understand the hurt feelings all around.

But on the issue of religion, I spent sixteen years of my life sincerely looking for answers and I think I finally found them. They weren't the answers I wanted. Everyone wants to believe that some celestial entity personally cares about them. That's the trap. If I want to believe in something, I automatically feel skeptical about that belief. Faith is a cop-out. Proof is needed and in the case of religion, there is no proof.

My opinion is that religion is nothing but wishful thinking. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that a god or gods exist, that an afterlife exists, that we are reincarnated, etc. etc. etc. That's my carefully thought-out opinion. If your opinion is carefully thought-out, it shouldn't matter one iota what I think as long as I don't attack you personally.

On Edit: By the way, I crossed the line when referring to religion as "superstition." That's a loaded word and I apologize for using it. However, my belief that religion is bunk (as Thomas Edison put it) remains the same. (Thomas Edison was not a moron, by the way.)

[Jose Diablo]

92. Yep, ideas

Thats what its all about. Defend your faith, religion if you will.

Its a very Christian idea, there is even a word for it, apologetic.
The third meaning in Oxford: a reasoned defense or vindication.

And your right, believe me when I say I have tried to prove the existence of God. I have tried but I can't prove it. Yet I still believe.

It doesn't bother me though that others don't believe. Still, it would be nice if it could be proved, or disproved for that matter.

But then the world would not need faith. Maybe it wouldn't be good to be able to prove after all. Should we also toss out hope? Is it enough to know we will all perish eventually and well, we lived a good life. What would be left, Carpa Diem? Gets kinda greedy going down that path. Or is the 'inherent goodness' of man enough to build a civilization?

Your probably right though, its all myth. I should have been just as money grubbing, selfish and unscrupulous as *Bush.

[Ladyhawk]

103. The way I look at it is this:

If we only go around once, it's all the more reason to make sure we treat each other with love and respect, feed the poor, stop wars, save the environment, etc. Just because our lives are finite doesn't mean they have no value.

As Albert Einstein said: "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

From my own rather long involvement with religion, I discovered that most sects (the fundamentalist ones) actually held back moral development by denying rights to people of color, women, homosexuals, etc. Humanism can offer a real alternative to this.

And you're right, some atheists don't give a rat's ass what happens to anybody else. My brother is one of them, entrenched hard in the Republican Party. But overall, I've found that religion is more guilty than atheism when it comes to promoting crimes against humanity. There are whole books describing this. Check out Holy Hatred and Holy Horrors by James A. Haught. Even today you can see how the Republicans are using religion to withhold rights from everyday Americans. These people really believe they are right and have the blessing of the Almighty. This makes them very, very dangerous.

One more quote for the road: "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."-- Carey Goldberg. "Why Are We Here?" International Herald Tribune, Paris ed., no. 36,125; Monday, Apr. 26, 1999; p. 10.

As for myself, I am definitely more soft-hearted since I became an atheist. I'm certainly not perfect, but my heart aches for all those times when I did something cruel in the name of my god, thinking it was what he wanted.

[Jose Diablo]

105. Ok, you have a moral/ethical foundation for doing the 'right' thing

Whatever that right thing is.

Agree on humanism as a highly ethical system of belief.

Is humanism a form of religion? Doesn't humanism believe in the perfectibility of humans? Maybe I am wrong on this.

I will tell you this, I have been involved with sects, actually I now call it a cult and you are absolutely correct in that some the more 'fundamental' churches waste valuable talent because of what I call distortion of interpreting de Book. If you want I can point out misinterpretations in Pauline letters in regards to treatment of women in the church, but I won't now.

Its a bad thing to waste a life. Some religions waste life.

[shimmergal]

152. And why not toss out "love" as well.

After all, no one can "prove" it exists, except for one's own subjective feelings.

Science's "proven knowledge" is always being displaced by more recent findings and the associated theories.

As for being guided by "reason," which so many atheists claim to be,
well, reason is a method. It needs to be used on specific content to make any sense, but whether _anyone_ can use it purely, without bringing individual or social biases or wishes into the picture, is quite doubtful.

I guess I'm an agnostic about _any_ route or belief system being in possession of "the truth." Now, maybe I've made all sides in this debate mad. Sorry, I respect anyone who's _really_ seeking, whether through a religious faith or another path.

[Jose Diablo]

154. Truth can be a slippery thing, you bet. n/t

[Sterling]

186. "superstition." but it is.

Unless you are a "believer" religion is just myth and superstition. You have to take a leap of faith to make it any more than that.

[ulysses]

77. so did I.

Makes sense to me. :hi:

[Rowdyboy]

24. Some people think Christians=fundamentalists

No sense trying to discuss with people who have very little knowledge of the subject and even less interest in learning.

[Ladyhawk]

98. Usually, when I use the term "Christian" I am thinking of fundies.

Fundies themselves think they are the only true Christians, which just complicates the matter. Unfortunately, I have had very little exposure to liberal Christians in recent years. As a fundy, I attended a liberal Christian college and fought the professors tooth and nail, speaking up for "Truth, Justice and the Republican Way." :eyes: Although I am now an atheist, I bet I have more in common with my old profs than when I was a "Christian."

Hmmmph...we're discussing religion on a political board. No wonder the sparks are flying. :D

[Vogon_Glory]

182. Fundies Equate Fundamentalism With Christianity

Fundamentalist evangelical Christians equate only their sectarian beliefs with Christianity. To their way of thinking, Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, LDS'ers, Christian Scientists, and even liturgical Protestant Christians aren't really believing Christians and, given the chance, they'll tell you that unless you've been "born again" THEIR way, you aren't a Christian.

Politically right-wing Fundamentalist Christians seem to line up behind preachers and politicos who would happily dismantle the regulatory safeguards and protections that diminish the rich and powerful to prey on the poor and helpless, support fiscal policies that would close hospitals and public schools, and ignore social justice.

And these Fundamentalists wonder why so many other people's hackles rise when they hear the word "Christian"? It's because of the salt they've sown behind them.

[Indiana Democrat]

26. I can't BELIEVE all the votes saying...

"Not the place to discuss any religion".

Good Lord...80% of all Americans call themselves religious. And because of that, religion is a big part of politics. And so many people think we shouldn't be discussing it here??

If this poll doesn't prove how out of the main stream we are, I don't know what does.

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. Yeah, what would we talk about?

Oh, that would be it for I/P. That would be it for discussion of half of what we talk about and part of all subjects.

[Superfly]

33. Only 9% of respondents view this as a welcome place

to discuss religion, yet there are scores of threads on the "Passion", Christian, etc. I know that very few of those threads discuss Christianity or any religion in a positive light.

[ulysses]

67. why on earth do people want so badly to prove

that DU is out of the mainstream when no one is saying DU is *in* the mainstream in any particular way?

That said, I agree that religion is definitely something that should be open for discussion here...with the understanding that "open for discussion" means, as the poster said early in this thread, freely given opinion from all sides.

[sangha]

146. IMO, when it comes to religious intolerance

DU is right in the middle of the mainstream. Or maybe, we;re the rapids.

[ulysses]

185. no. mainstream religious intolerance in America

is aimed at Muslims and non-believers, not at Christians.

[Ladyhawk]

68. I don't see why there can't be a theology forum.

Why not?

[POed_Ex_Repub]

119. It'd be like GD2004 early in the primaries, only worse

But heck, I'd give it a whirl. I do think Religion should be discussed on this board simply because it effects so many policy decisions. I prefer to talk about policy over the merit of one religion over another. (I'll point out a thing or two, but I'm not out to convert anyone) Personally, for me it's nice to be on a political forum where not everyone just assumes you are Christian.

I say debate it, but do your best to be civil about it.

[VelmaD]

36. You know you don't help the level of tolerance...

when you title your thread "Religious tolerance on DU" and then narrow your focus down to whether DU is hostile to Christianity.

[Superfly]

37. I was very even-handed in my poll questions...

thank you.

[Walt Starr]

39. I noticed the same damn thing

America is all about pro-christianity fuck everything else, IMO.

[Superfly]

42. That was not the intent of this poll

the vast majority of the recent discussions on DU with regard to religion and/or religous topics have been about CHRISTIANITY

[VelmaD]

43. Then title the thread...

"Tolerance of Christianity on DU"

[Superfly]

45. Done.

Peace

[Walt Starr]

47. Now the answers don;t follow along with the title

:puke:

[Superfly]

53. You know...if you didn't like the thread...you could have just

ignored it. That might have been an appropriate action, no?

[VelmaD]

48. Thank you

Pax. :)

[Walt Starr]

44. Maybe not overtly

but it sure as hell is what I see in the poll.

Just some more pro-Christian anti-everything else rhetoric, IMO.

And you even skewed the answers so it look like poor lilk' christianity is a victim on DU.

[Superfly]

49. Duplicate...sorry

[Superfly]

50. Never did I even allege

"Pro Christian, anti-everything else". That's quite a leap to make.

And, I did not skew the choices (not "answers").

[BonjourUSA]

51. Perhaps it is not the right place... But

The discussions about the religion(s) always get a great success !

[Superfly]

54. How do you measure success of a religous thread?

Number of posts?

The material worth of the discussion?

[BonjourUSA]

90. Number of religious threads per day and number of posts per thread

[supernova]

56. What I would like to discuss

and it appears to be very difficult here on DU is:

How to we liberals discuss tactics for dealing with the influence of the RR?

How do you reach common ground with people who vote republican, but might vote dem if you can get them to see that the GOP's policies do not bring about with they think they desire? And before you say "good ridance, we don't need them!", we need every vote we can get. We need the non-voters, we need the greens, we need liberal-leaning religious folks of all faiths. We need agnostics and athiests.

AND

How in the world do you hold that discussion and NOT discuss religion, fundamentalist xtianity in particular, in some way? If there's a way to do that, I"ll certainly do it. But for the life of me, I can't figure out how.

What angers me when the subject of religion comes up on DU is that I get an eyeful about what a tortuously rotten experience someone had growing up, being force-fed myths about magical sky gods. While I am sorry for your trauma, I can't do anything about it. I can't make up for it. I can give you a bit of tea and sympathy, but that's about it. I can't replace that bad experience with something more palatable. What's past is past, history, done.

What I can do is work in the present with you to try to make this a better place for ALL of us, where we all feel free to be who we are in all intellectual honesty.

So is this possible or not? Am I just incredibly naive? I'm listening.

[Superfly]

58. Those are good questions...

How about discussing it in another thread? (Not being rude, I think your questions are deserving of their own, fresh thread.)

[supernova]

69. Thanks

for your thoughtful reply, Superfly.

Are there any changes you would make? I'm open to suggestions before I start a new thread.

[Jose Diablo]

130. Would this still be in the GD forum or would a different forum be better?

[supernova]

133. I don't know

I could start the thread here in GD, where more people might see it and respond.

OTOH, I'm really afraid it would get moved to GD2004 and cause even more mayhem with fewer people... if that's possible. :eyes:

[Jose Diablo]

136. Well, I think understanding how the rr fundy's come to their

ideas on many things is most important from the stand point of how to deal with them and hopefully bringing them to a more tolerant view.

To that end understanding how the guys in the black robes make them believe a woman is better off barefoot and pregnate is a good place to start.

That core idea comes from misinterpreting the Pauline letters. Therefore a little understanding on how they go wrong can go a long way for a progressive.

[Jose Diablo]

141. I would suggest the meeting room, but it is not my call. n/t

[Ksec]

61. double standards

Lots of double standards here with the bashing of some religions and giving others a more balanced veiw. Im not sure why but my guess is that Christians are equated with Repubs which is understandable but inaccurate. Lots of Dem Christians out here.

IMO you who bash one while giving others free rides are subscribing to double standards which is your perogative .

[noiretextatique]

65. i think most people take pains to make the distinctions

but there are some who don't. i think the double standard in this society applies to the expected reverance one is supposed to have, for Christian beliefs, in particular. no true of wicca, voodun, santeria, gnosticism and other religions...the reverance thing, that is.

[Ksec]

70. hmm

unexpected reverance toward Christianity is something I never noticed before. Maybe this is just a personal feeling by some that Christians have this holier than thou attitude. Perhaps they do in some cases but not in the whole as a group IMO. That would be stereotyping wouldnt it?

[noiretextatique]

75. if you read my post, you may notice i was referring to culture

and yes...i do believe there is an especial expectation of reverence regarding the christian religion in this culture. as to how individual christians act within this culture...i suppose that would depend on a number of factors. a good comparison, i think, is to look at the behavior of other dominant groups in this country.
seems a rather mild and obvious observation...unless of course, you are looking for persecution in every post.

[Ksec]

145. I did read your post and it said nothing about culture

It did say religion but whatever. You obviously have your hangups about Christianity and I cant change those. Carry on.

[noiretextatique]

178. " the double standard in this society applies to the expected reverance"

that quote is about the CULTURE, not individual christians. hang-ups?!? :wtf: are you talking about? noting a cultural phenomenon and posting my opinion about it is not a "hang-up"...it's a comment.
i think you're projecting...

[seabeyond]

64. my whole speech

and character is wrapped in spirituality and not once have i been uncomfortable or attacked, .........though some have mentioned not understanding me, but they werent the first. doesnt hurt ot hear,. i just try to be a little more clear, not always an easy thing for me

[Mick Knox]

73. Overtly extremely hostile.....

That said.. no big deal.. everyones entitled to their opinion.. I havent been offended by any of the passion threads.. pro or con.. If you cant express your opinion here.. you'd just go somewhere else...

I havent been around DU for too long.. but I have never seen christian bashing en masse like I do here... justified due to recent events or not..

[ulysses]

79. here's a thought.

Religion can be approached in at least three ways - reverentially, as in worship; theologically, as in a discussion between Reform and Orthodox rabbis; and as a matter of debate regarding its influence on public life.

DU is a political message board with a wide variety of believers, non-believers and everything in between. Which kind of approach do you think you're going to find here?

[Ladyhawk]

81. 1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Thomas Jefferson referred to the first amendment as establishing a wall of separation between church and state. Subsequent treaties with other countries also pointed out that the United States is a secular country.

That's why I don't think a political forum is the proper place to discuss religion.

Is the lounge an appropriate place since it isn't political? Maybe. In fact, probably. But I can't guarantee anyone is going to like what I have to say. I will try to be more sensitive when debating my ideas. My bad for the "superstition" thing.

[Mick Knox]

86. Why would first amend remotely apply to a private mb? nt

[Ladyhawk]

96. The first amendment applies to politics and this is a political board.

I was just speaking out my ass. There aren't many (if any) religious threads in General Discussion, but I think the Lounge is fair game. It might even be a good idea to have a theological forum.

I was thinking and typing at the same time in the above thread...multitasking. At least my brain wasn't running Windows ME or I might have crashed. :D I'll try to think first and post later in the future.

[FlaGranny]

179. Normally, I would agree that

a political forum is not the place to discuss religion. Unfortunately, our "president" has made religion a political issue. How can we possibly discuss our present fundamentalist Christian administration WITHOUT discussion religion? They are the primary cause of it even being an issue on this board.

[BiggJawn]

85. It is DEMOCRATIC Underground, NOT CHRISTIAN Underground.

As Skinner pointed out when he enacted the ban on sex threads in the lounge "You want to go discuss sex and carry on like adolescents, there's plenty of OTHER places on the web for you to do it.

I'm really sorry, folks, but you get upset at people calling YOUR beliefs "myths" and "fables", and I get upset at the perpetuation of said "myths", with the implication that I'm going to spend "eternity" in some sort of eternal torment, which has not EVER been proven to be true (Hey, I got a book about a talking bear and a kid named Christopher Robins, does that make the Hundred Acre Wood a REAL place?).

Perhaps we should put religion in the same place as sex, but then that would hamstring any sort of discussion on the Middle-East, Iraqi politics, Jerry Falwell and his lustful desire to be Head Theocrat, the Taliban-ization of America, etc.

I think the solution is for everyone to just get a thicker skin.

[donco6]

88. I agree

The Christians get upset when people vehemently disagree with their inherently inflammatory (no pun intended) beliefs. Too bad.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

93. Thank You-I agree and I'm Christian

[BonjourUSA]

94. I agree too

We're often close to the overdose.

[Walt Starr]

95. Well said!

Thank you.

[Rich Hunt]

97. the problem is

...many people think 'Christians' believe the same things.

You do it yourself - right here:

I'm really sorry, folks, but you get upset at people calling YOUR beliefs "myths" and "fables", and I get upset at the perpetuation of said "myths", with the implication that I'm going to spend "eternity" in some sort of eternal torment

...many, many Christians don't believe that non-believers will go to 'hell' for not believing.

I agree that a small handful of Christians have over-reacted in recent threads, and I have disagreed with them. But people who make inaccurate statements about others' beliefs should also expect to be challenged. Respect is also about not making assumptions about others' beliefs.

'The Christians' (as some people on this thread call 'them') do not all hold the same beliefs. The least people on a liberal board could do is acknowledge this. This is not a homogeneous country, never will be - it is ridiculously diverse, and thank dog for that. Americans have a responsibility to not caricature others' cultures and beliefs. That would apply equally to defensive Christians on DU AS WELL AS non-Christians.

And guess what? I'm NOT a Christian - people usually assume I am if I make these arguments.

[Pithlet]

132. Well put

And I'm not a Christian, either.

[Muddleoftheroad]

99. Civility is the solution

[not systems]

101. Agreed.

moved.

[Indiana Democrat]

118. You say this...

"I think the solution is for everyone to just get a thicker skin."

After saying this...

"I get upset at the perpetuation of said "myths", with the implication that I'm going to spend "eternity" in some sort of eternal torment"



IF you don't believe it, I don't know WHY it being said would bother you...

[BiggJawn]

143. OK, Touche'.....

I can understand why you would wonder that, since you don't know where I've been.

I spent 9 years working for a ministry. That's where I got my education in basic theology, what passes for "christianity" in this culture, and some of the baser perversions, like "Name it and Claim it" (Bob Tilton, Dicky Roberts, Rod Parsley, etc.)

After I "lost my faith" and "outed" myself (dumb move) I had to put up with all manner of abuse DAILY. A co-worker told me, after my step-son shot himself, that "The DEVIL is working in your Family!"

Now do you understand the paradox?

[Blue_Chill]

128. That's like telling women at work to stop bitching about sexist jokes

The person that has to change is the one doing the offending. If people would learn some respect and mind their manners like they do on every other issue we'd be fine.

[drdigi420]

100. it is hostile to non religious people

when we say that religion is myth, we get attacked

when we point out that religion has been the cause of lots of pain and suffering around the world, we get attacked

when we talk about the damage that religion is doing to our country and the government of the people, we get attacked

thats just the way it is

we're either with them or against them

they can't stand to have their myths questioned, and that makes them react in a hostile manner

[Rich Hunt]

102. I only saw one or two people...

...have a conflict with you.

You are not a 'we', and 'they' are in fact one or two people.

Personally, I am ashamed to be in the same non-belief-camp as you and a few other 'non-Christians' or 'non-believers'.

[drdigi420]

110. fine, be ashamed

i dont really care

i wont even hit alert on the personal attack, like they did to me, because im not that sensitive

i think the whole story of christianity and gods is silly and obviously false

it seems ok for them to inject their beliefs into everything, but not ok for me to state my belief that their belief is nonsense.

its a double standard

[alarcojon]

106. Intelligence and civility

I agree with all of your points about religion. They could all be debated at a high level of intelligence and civility. Some of us are trying to do that, and I think DU is an appropriate place for it. As has been pointed out several times above, there is just too much of an overlap between religion and politics for us to avoid religion in a political forum.

I take due note that many Christians are offended by some of the tone here. I add that I think that non-Christians (especially atheists) have a serious persecution complex in this country, due to the overwhelming cultural predominance of Christianity. I certainly grew up feeling like my views were at the very least wrong, at the worst sinful. That might help explain some of the anger some people have towards Christianity, though of course it doesn't excuse it. I also think some are conflating their dislike for Bush's disgusting, cynical manipulation of religion with the real thing.

[not systems]

111. I think many people don't know what...

having adults telling children that they will go to hell
for what they believe does to a persons perception of the
faith who's name they do it in.

I was raised an Atheist and if people knew what treatment
Christian adults can dole out to non-believing children
they would puke.

[Lars39]

147. Yes. Such treatment wounds the young horribly.

My daughter has basically been written off by her fundy grandmother for not believing. The child had never been disrespectful towards her grandmother, yet she is met with the most hateful attitude I've ever seen. My MIL shows more affection and warmth to the kids at her church than she has EVER shown to my child. :mad:

[FlaGranny]

183. Your post hits home with me.

I remember my aunt telling my sweet little 7-year-old that she would burn in hell if she didn't accept Jesus. Needless to say, I didn't take that well.

[Blue_Chill]

129. That's garbage!

No one goes crazy when you say you don't believe. But 'smart people aren't religious' is an insult. I won't mention who wrote that because my post will get deleted again......

[not systems]

104. Christian persecution complex.

It seems people think it is a hate crime to call anything
Christian a myth or fable.

I doubt the same zealous believers feel that calling
Atheists mass murders and Chairman Mao like should raise
any ones hackles.

The fact is the US is overwhelmingly Christian and if
you aren't then you face a hostile climate in school and
in many other areas of life.

After experiencing coercive indoctrination attempts and
contempt from public school teachers as a child I can truly
say many Christians are the worst sort of haters.

If people take responsibility for what is done in the name of
their faith then I will consider the merit of their persecution
complex.

You may be a good Christian but millions of other claim the
same in the name of hate and oppression through out the ages
and today.

[BonjourUSA]

107. This thread gets over hundred posts !!

A discussion about religion is always a success... No ?

[9215]

109. Mythology has its place

and DU aint' it.

[Pithlet]

122. Come on.

Du isn't a place to attack people for their beliefs, either.

[9215]

123. "For everything there is a place, under the sun, etc."

:eyes:

[Pithlet]

125. I don't know why

I got a :eyes:, but the thread is about whether or not Christianity is tolerated here, and it is comments like yours that lead many, who do not shove their beliefs down others throats, to feel that way. I'm not a Christian, actually. But I do know many on here who are, and almost never discuss their views, and certainly never bash my belief (or lack of). I don't see the need to bash anyone's beliefs here.

[Blue_Chill]

131. thanks

seriously posts like that mean a lot.

[Sterling]

187. Myths they are.

It is not an attack to acknowledge that fact.

[PsychoDad]

124. To many people...

religion is more to them than a pair of shoes that are taken out and dusted off only for friday/saturday/sunday service. (think I've covered almost everyone)

To some of us religion is a way of life that influinces what we eat, how we dress, how we act and interact.

A Wiccan may make careful everyday choices because of her awareness for the earth. A Native American practicioner may be more likely to espouse native american causes. A Christian may be more likely to espouse charity and humanitarian causes because Christ charged them to. And I'm pretty sure that is also goint to affect the way they will vote.

For some, you cannot seperate the person from the religion, because that person is living their religion everyday.

Are we who we are because of our religion, or are we our religion because of who we are? I don't know... I think the line blurs.

Peace

[PsychoDad]

112. I think it could be much more tolerant

Some folks seem to dislike religion in general, christaniy in particular...

On the whole most DUer's are a pretty tolerant and open minded lot. But even as a non-christian, I've noticed that some of our christian friends are sometimes attacked, more often ridiculed for their beliefs when stated or discussed..

[Muddleoftheroad]

113. I wish you post had been a reply to #109

[PsychoDad]

117. LOL...

I hadn't gotten to 109 yet ;)

[Pithlet]

115. Because of all the hoopla over The Passion

It has definitely been more hostile than usual, from both sides.

[Dunedain]

116. Yes and no

Yes this forum has presented me with some very enlightened opinions on the nature and role of all faiths and beliefs.
That said, it can be a challenge to maintain civility when I see my beliefs arbitrarily defined in an offhand and somewhat callous manner at times.
Hey, I'm a big boy, I can take it. That goes with the territory of holding any beliefs I think.
I am only those derisive labels if I choose to accept them, and I don't. In other words sticks and stones......
Would I wish that people would respect my belief? Yes, of course I do, as do countless others I am sure. Will I take offense when someone makes a flippant remark about a deep held conviction and a guiding principle in my life as nothing more than a myth, a crutch for the weak minded? Probably. But in the end, I choose my reaction.

[Wapsie B]

135. Why do we have

ao many thin-skinned Christians here? I think DU is very tolerant towards Chistianity. It's just that when the beliefs of some are challenged they start screaming intolerance.

[phrenzy]

139. What is the difference between Religion And Superstition?

Can somebody explain to me the difference between

Religion and Superstition?

Christianity and a Cult?

Honestly, I want to know how they are distinguished.

That said, I have to say - I am guilty of knee-jerk labeling of anyone who claims the Christian faith to be a 'Fundie' or usually assume it is MUCH more likely that they are a Republican. That is my erroneous prejudice and I recognize that flaw.

I also have to make a huge distinction between the evangelical Republican type bible thumpers and the, I guess I would call, philosophical Christians on DU. The Christians on DU often make distinctions between themselves and the 'Fundies' that we often refer too. Many Christians on DU will also call out fellow Christians for being militant or ignorant or hateful - and often be very much in favor of separation of Church in every case. So I don't think we can say they are 'pushing their beliefs on us'

At the same time, I can't help but take offense at a belief SYSTEM that is INHERENTLY discriminatory. Christianity *and* Islam *and* Judaism separate humanity in to two categories US and THEM. The SAVED and the DAMNED. Sure, you can cherry pick bits and pieces of the religion to try to imply that this is not the case, but taken in total it IS the case. All of these religions give lip service to 'peace and love to your fellow man' etc etc - But they always imply "You are superior to THEM because you believe in THIS"

The only religion I can think of that seems passive in this respect is Buddhism and possibly Native American religions. I'm not saying this to be PC - I'm simply saying this because I see the historical differences between the religions and their followers.

I have my own personal form of religion - it involves being returned to the universe that I came from. I will go out of this life, and return to a sort of 'one-ness' with the earth and ultimately the universe. Whether I am burned, buried or frozen, eventually my physical makeup will turn into space gas as will all of you - and this end is good enough for me - as I believe I share the same end with all of humanity and with it some of the greatest people who ever lived.

[Astarho]

184. The difference is

Religion, like Scripture and history are something only WE have.

Superstition, like myth and tales are something THEY have.

[starroute]

151. Christianity poses a philosophical problem that can't be ducked

This business of being human puts us in a strange pickle. It's like the text games from the early days of computers, where all you knew was that you were standing on a path with the option of going either left or right, and you had to figure out a bit at a time who you were, and where you were, and what you were supposed to do, and how to do it.

Real life is no different than that. We gather clues and piece them together and try to make sense of things. And though we don't all come to precisely the same conclusions, most of us share a general consensus that we're able to have fairly definite knowledge of the world in our immediate vicinity, much vaguer knowledge of places and events that are more distant from us in space and time, and only the fuzziest intimations about anything that may lie entirely outside the world we know.

Except that there are some people who aren't part of that consensus. They insist that they know something the rest of us don't about what lies outside our familiar world. If we ask them how, they may tell us that they get messages from outside, or speak to visitors from elsewhere, or have an old book written by someone else who got the messages or received the vistors.

People of that sort -- and they might be UFO cultists, or spirit mediums, or even traditional shamans -- are generally quite aware that their claims will appear strange to anyone who doesn't share their experience. Most of them seem pretty resigned to the fact that they may come across as a little loony, and they don't get offended if someone says so.

However, many Christians seem to want it both ways. They don't choose to be limited by the consensus based on factual knowledge. Instead, they proclaim very confidently that they are the keepers of special, valuable messages from outside. But they don't want to be seen as visionary madmen either. They want their non-consensus beliefs to be treated with the general respect that is normally given only to consensus beliefs, and they get insulted if people who don't share their beliefs suggest that they think those beliefs are pure moonshine.

That's the part I can't understand. I'm all for non-consensus beliefs, myself. I think it's very important to cultivate the non-rational, intuitive side of our nature. But I also think that it's vital to maintain a sharp sense of the difference between consensus and non-consensus, and to maintain a sense of relativity about the latter.

What it comes down to is that I don't think anyone should be allowed to practice a religion who isn't prepared to laugh at themself for doing so. And people who have no sense of humor about their religion frankly scare me. If I've been guilty at times of teasing Christians on this board, it's because I keep hoping they'll lighten up and learn to be holy madmen. But I'm getting the feeling that it's the wrong approach.

[phrenzy]

153. You should clarify

That also Islam and Judaism share this smugness.

[starroute]

174. They do an an extent -- but not in quite the same way

Judaism has the Talmudic tradition of looking at three sides of any question, which tends to lighten things up considerably. It's also based on the idea of the Jews having a special covenant with God, which can be a source of self-congratulation but which also leaves plenty of room for other peoples to have their own valid paths.

Islam is about as stripped-down as a monotheistic religion can get. As long as you believe that there is only one God and Mohammed was his prophet (and not even necessarily his only prophet), you can be a Moslem. There may be a heavy load of tradition piled on top of that, but there isn't a lot of dogma.

I'm not sure Judaism has ever had any heretics. Islam has had relatively few. But in Christianity, up until the last few centuries, heresy was a constant issue. Not only did Christians have to believe in Jesus, but they had to believe in exactly the right idea of Jesus, with the proper balance of human and divine. Not only did they have to believe in the Trinity, but they had to believe in the proper definition of the Trinity. And there were any number of other doctrines, like salvation and transubstantiation, where placing a semi-colon wrong could get you sent to the stake.

I think it's this quality of being centrally concerned about beliefs that gets certain Christians caught up into confrontations, even with the generally tolerant folk here at DU. The arguments that occur are arguments about beliefs -- not about behavior or morals or political correctness. And it's very hard to find common ground with somebody who thinks that their beliefs trump yours and that if you assert your own beliefs you're insulting theirs.

It's clear that there are also plenty of people here who consider themselves Christians but who stay far away from arguments of that sort. However, the few who jump in and start arguing at every chance make it very hard for people who do want to find common ground to work through questions of faith, skepticism, and the relationship of religion to politics.

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

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

[Kimber Scott]

157. A good place to discuss

any religion:

http://www.beliefnet.com/

I think we have enough contention in here just dealing with politics!

[freeforall]

158. Not appropriate to discuss religion here.

We have enough problems with discussing the other quintessential hot debate topic - politics.

Religion/spirituality is a personal matter. Live and let live.

[Woodstock]

165. Bush has made religion a front and center issue - why be an ostrich?

The issue won't go away because you don't want to talk about it.

If we want to win in November, we have to address it.

Like it or not, the majority of Americans are Christian, and they vote.

[alarcojon]

177. Exactly!

And as I mentioned earlier in this thread, Bush expects everyone to back off and not question his motives. He and his minions will not allow his opponents to pick apart his policies, because they arise from his "deeply held faith".

How do we counter this? That is the real issue. But we certainly can't do it by insulting or stereotyping Christians. It is just not productive.

[qwertyMike]

160. I don't think he ever existed

but he should have

[Selwynn]

163. Who the hell cares? These kinds of threads bug me.

Seriously - I have deeply held spiritual beliefs of my own, but for some reason all these "meta" discussions about religion, namely Christianity recently on DU bug me.

To me, if your opinion on a subject being discussed is conditioned by your spiritual convictions, then speak your opinion from that context. I do that, and I have never felt "harassed" or "attacked" here.

On the other hand, if your nose is bent out of joint because DU is not a place that takes kindly to proselytizing or evangelizing or trying to ram home your beliefs on everyone else - well tough cookies. :)

I don't have any problem with a person who has an opinion that is contextualized by his or her spiritual beliefs. That describes me. I have a huge problem with people who go on an evangelical crusade on DU boards. There is a difference.

[Heyo]

176. I have never seen...

.. anywhere on DU.. anyone trying to ram home their religious beliefs on other people.. or preaching about Jesus, etc...

Except when I see atheists ridiculing the beliefs of Christians as "sorcery" or comments like "invisible man in the sky" and "made up stories to keep people oppressed"...that type of thing.. and it only gets worse.

That's about the only religious intolerance I've seen on DU.

Heyo

[Woodstock]

164. If Bush and the pope make Christianity political we have to respond

We can hide our heads in the sand and ignore that they brought it up in a political way, but that will solve nothing.

The issue won't go away. Like it or not, the majority of voters in the US are Christian.

Bush/the Republicans/the Pope are deliberately pitching to Christian voters in America that:

1) Democrats are not Christian, and therefore don't share their values, which is false (remember, most Democrats are Christian and DU is not representative of most Democrats)

2) So vote Republican (and we know most Republican politicians are behaving anything BUT in a Christian manner)

If we can develop a strategy to counter their stragegy, it serves our interests of getting Bush/the Republicans out of office/bringing about reform.

Would I bring religion up? No. But once they bring it up, we MUST respond. In this case, it's a challenge we cannot afford to ignore.

As for just talking about religion in general, that is, not responding to the political moves of B/R/P, then no, I'd rather it not be discussed in GD. The vast majority of us here believe in separation of Church and state, and don't want to intrude upon the privacy of others by either pushing our religion on someone or the reverse side, mocking someone's religion (and one is just as bad as the other.) I'm a Christian, but if you choose not to believe, or to believe in something else, then more power to you, just let's all be respectful of each other's choices. Isn't that what being a Democrat is all about (or should be?) I think any way a person chooses to be good to each other and the world is beautiful, whatever they choose to call it. Live and let live.

But responding to the Republican strategy of gaining votes or eroding our civil liberties or destroying our environment by lying to such a large segment of the US population, the Christians, is essential. If we don't respond, we lose. Why not take advantage of Christians here who have the ammunition to counter their attacks?

[Nashvilliberal]

170. Please cite your references....

"...the Pope are deliberately pitching to Christian voters in America that: Democrats are not Christian"

Please post ANY quote in which the Pope even INFERS this. You forget: the Catholic Church is just as strongly against the death penalty as it is against abortion. And Pope John Paul II was/is unwavering in his opposition to the Iraq War (unlike many religious leaders). Mother Teresa epitomized what the Catholic/Christian Church teaches. Do you think she'd be a Republican?

[incontrovertible]

166. well, to be perfectly blunt

I never expect any online forum to be all that receptive to any point of view, and tend to avoid the ones that are.

That said, I've yet to see any self-professing Christian on this board treat any nonbeliever with the same presumption of "Fuck You, You Moron, You Living Joke" that I routinely see originating from the anti-Christian corners. Certainly other forums, but not here.

[Nashvilliberal]

171. Thank You

It's been disappointing to see a group of people supposedly so dedicated to respecting those with disparate beliefs use "The Passion" as an excuse to get in a good Christian-bashing.

The forum rules dictate that we "Do not post racist, sexist, homophobic, ethnic, anti-religious, or anti-atheist bigotry." Please note the "anti-religious" part.

If someone had a bad experience with a mean-spirited Priest, or an adulterous Minister, or just a run-of-the-mill hypocrite Christian, then I'm sorry, but please don't extrapolate from there. Most Christians are not going to tell you how to live your life, because they're too busy dealing with their own shortcomings to spend time preaching to anyone else about theirs.

[Mick Knox]

172. Insensitivity of the worst kind... has really affected me here at DU

I pretty much departed GD2004 until after the nominee is select... as its a little too much right now...

Moved here.. just intending to discuss whatever.. just for the BS Fun of it..

While I dont individually respond to those with differening view.. due to the inherent senselessness in believing you need to change every persons point of view whom you disagree with.. I have been affected by Passion before even seeing it.. and I have become .. hurt I guess is the best word.. by the attacks here.

There are so many that overtly attack and do so in a manner that can only be classified as the worst type of hate speach I've ever seen.. Attacking christians with such ruthless viciousness as too think I might be in a forum much different than this.. this from people who:

in one thread will demand tolerance for their views.. castigate repukes for being intolerant, ... mock the right wing for trying to shove their views down peoples throats.. then 2 minutes later wander into a passion thread and spew the most vile hatred .. that if you simply change the word from Christian to any other race or group of people, as to make any racist, or right wing nutcase proud... and most certainly they would be banned from posting here.. if it were any other group or race.

If I selected a random threat and copy and pasted it.. and changed reference from Christian.. to anyone else.. I'm sure I that thread would be locked so quickly.. if not me tombstoned.

I am disheartened with DU to say the least. Litterally hurt and sad.

I .. think many at DU should be ashamed for showing the same insensitivity they daily pretend to fight against.


Take it for what its worth.. but it has not been enjoyable.. to say the least.

[Ksec]

188. here here

I completely agree. I'm not sure why the bashing goes on here but it does. I have a theory that since Christians and conservatives are usually tied together most feel any Christian is conservative hence the dislike. I'm not a devout worshiper. I was raised going to church but I haven't been to church for years. My Mother is a sunday school teacher and her influence is definitely there. I still have that base inside me. Stick around. We have work to do.

[Mick Knox]

189. As well me ..

Grew up very religious... then "backslid" .. aside from wedding or funerals or what not.. I am not a "practicing" christian.. although I feel like friggin fundie of late.. it is not true.. I feel some need to offer a voice of decent within the blatant attacks going on.. perhaps a rebel without a cause.. I am sure it is also my "christian base" causing this... I'm going to try to remain as respectful as possible and selective in where I post.. but I do feel that DU has crossed the line in SOME instances from simply disagreeing with various belief systems, which is common in religion, to outright vile hate speech purposely posted to hurt someone else. You can easily see how things like the inquisition etc is happen.. there is NO tolerance.. even amoung some of those preaching and protesting for tolerance.

[mandyky]

175. Tolerance for Christians is directly proportional

to the tolerance from Christians. Tolerant Christians probably feel welcome here, however fundies and evangelicals might not feel so welcome. There have been times (like about a year ago) when all religious discussion were locked, I forget now but I think it had to do with shrub and his faith based crap.

[Beacho]

181. Let's see

You say:"do you believe DU to be a welcome place to discuss the Christain faith or a hostile one?".


Dunno, what would you do if I showed up at your church and started discussing my politics or offering a critique of Christianity?

When you say 'discuss the Christian faith', what exactly do you mean?


I don't think it's appropriate, any more than it would be appropriate to discuss Nietzche's critiques of religion.

That's like asking if it's appropriate to discuss basket weaving techniques on a history board.

Square peg, meet round hole.