The "Anti-Religion" Perception

[Sooner75]

The last paragraph on a Newsweek article about the Dean flap:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8185333/site/newsweek/

(NOTE: I don't want to re-ignite the raw nerve over Howard Dean. I want to discuss this "anti-religion" perception. Please take discussions of Howard Dean to ANOTHER thread.)

But Dean's real problem may not be his mouth but his mind-set. He and his aides seemed genuinely mystified at the idea that his characterization of the GOP was a political mistake. But by labeling the other party a bastion of Christianity, he implied that his own was something else—something determinedly secular—at a time when Dean's stated aim is to win the hearts of middle-class white Southerners, many of whom are evangelicals. In a slide-show presentation at the DNC conference last weekend, polltaker Cornell Belcher focused on why those voters aren't responding to the Democrats' economic message. One reason, he said, is that too many of them see the Democrats as "anti-religion." And why was that? No one asked Dean, who wasn't taking questions from the press.

--------------------------------------------------------
Seems to me that progressive people of faith need to get organized and meet the challenge here. As I see it, the religious right has set themselves as the only real voice of religion in the political arena. Progressives are out there, but they're not being heard. They need to move up to the Major Leagues and really engage the religious right. (Just took a gander at the 700 Club website where Pat Robertson explained that Allah is not the same God as Jehovah but a moon god from Mecca. Think you could engage that?)

I also think that the progressive people of faith movement should include Jews, Muslims and others. They can model a better take on religion and values. What about poverty? What about giving every child a shot at a good education?

Progressives can't just shout "Jesus was a liberal" and scurry away.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. The problem is not that the GOP is a party that has faith/religion

the problem is it is a party of ONE PARTICULAR religion, and its political goals are THEOCRACY.

[etherealtruth]

2. Exactly! n/t

[sui generis]

3. I'm a Dean supporter

he's talking about the fundamentalist coup of government and having politicians bow and scrape to every demented religious fruitcake out there.

"win the hearts of middle-class white Southerners, many of whom are evangelicals"

That's fine just so long as we can all get along together. Realize that those same middle class white southerner evangelicals are typically anti-gay, anti-choice, and anti-personal freedoms, and they're not a good acquisition target for our party - we can try, but we're going to fail.

I think Dean knows that. Talk to your base - not to the other side.

The Democratic party needs to support the people who ALREADY vote for them. Courting evangelicals (for the most part) is contrary to the base, unless you think that equality, minority and other social and progressive issues need to be abandoned to guarantee a Democratic win, in which case it would no longer be the Democratic party.

[Sooner75]

6. Sounds good if you live in Democrat friendly territory

Living in Texas where the Democratic Party is having a hard time getting any traction, I want the national party to make some effort to change the political landscape here. Since religion is pretty important here, I want to see the Democratic Party engage on religion. Head on. Straight up.

Texas is the biggest Red state on the map. 34 electoral votes. Do you want to do the hard work to get 'em back in play or do ya want to just let the GOP have them? As a Texas Democrat, your answer to that question matters to me very, very much.

[sui generis]

21. some things about being a Texas dem

Texans aren't about religion so much as the idea of belonging to a superior organization. That's why you hear a lot of "don't mess with Texas", and "Everything is big in Texas" and an almost fascist false pride in being a Texan from so many hard haired uptight republicans.

Along those lines, belonging to the exclusive "Southern Baptists" (and variations) is a power trip, having Tom Delay and two republican senators and a former governor as president with a ranch in TEXAS is a power trip, and finally, associating yourself with moral power and holier-than-thou rectitude is a power trip.

I don't think we're gonna win their hearts and minds.

But the rest of us Texans are pretty easy going - and that would be the "other half". Land and housing is relatively cheap here. Jobs pay at the top of the market, there is no state income tax, and gas is cheaper here. You can buy a lot of house for under 200K here, so we're seeing huge numbers of people moving from the blue states into the cities and surrounding bedroom communities. There is hope for Texas. As more fair minded people come here, regardless of their faith, or lack of faith, we will eventually turn the tide in this so-called "red" state. We have blue counties. Our major urban areas all voted blue (Dallas, Houston, Austin) in the last election, with surrounding areas lightest pink.

Appealing to fundamentalists cannot ever be done successfully without abandoning the things they take issue with: equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, minority affairs, public programs, preservation of personal freedoms. The price of successfully bringing typical evangelicals to the party is being beholden to them, and we see everyday how they use their "moral outrage" every time a republican says or does something they disagree with. Anyway, the republicans won them to their side by stoking their fear of change: evil homosexual gay marriage terrorists under every rock trying to convert kindergardeners and pres-schoolers, women having abortions on the way to work, evil liberals outlawing religion, etc., etc.

For the most part, we can do much better without them. The people we want to attract are fair minded, open minded, progressive, forward thinking people who tie onto hope for a good future instead of fear of the present. Our message needs to be hope to our base, not fear to people who don't believe in progressive values anyway.

[Sooner75]

48. I disagree

I really think that religion matters to Texans a lot more than you think. Most of the Texans I know are quite serious about their religion.

As for why major urban areas voted more Democratic, I think the black community had a lot to do with that, and they're very religious folks who happen to view the Democratic Party as the one who stood with MLK.

There are a lot of Muslims in the urban areas, and I saw them step up and get VERY involved in the local Democratic Party. They're very religious and very conservative, but, thanks to the Patriot Act and Abu Gharib, etc., they're now solidly Democratic.

[sui generis]

59. I guess it depends which Texans you know

small town Texas, probably so.

Anyway, still, the so called "values" that the republican party preys upon to keep those "religious" people so divided are to stoke their xenophobias into a nuclear fire.

They believe that people like me should not have the right to marry my life partner, dispose of my property to my family without the law treating them as legal strangers, to visit my partner in the hospital, will him a large life insurance policy, confer upon him my real estate holdings or even share a health insurance policy.

That's fine - but they want their "perceptions" to become my law. They are deaf to our words of fairness, choosing to align people like me with the worst aspects of society - venereal disease, mental illness, social instability, immorality.

I can't overcome those perceptions because they are unwilling to see reality. To bring those people into the party means inviting the enemy into my home. I cannot be inclusive of people who mean to shut me out of my own life, and I use the word "life" and not "lifestyle", because it is a life.

On the other hand, people like me vote every single issue and election. People like me give the maximum donations to our political candidates, and we hit the streets, the airwaves, the phone banks, the radio shows, and the posh private candidate cocktail receptions, dinners, and other honoraria that let us support our party. I know my value to the democratic party. I can count it in hard dollars. I can count it in soft dollars. I can take my dollars and effort elsewhere if we decide that the perceptions of the two fundamentalists for Bush are worth more on balance than the "bird in hand", so to speak.

We have to support our own base, first. There is an information and perception war, no doubt, but we cannot ever take our own for granted, and that is a much bigger mistake than failing to get the red religious vote to convert.

[Sooner75]

64. Arlington TX

I am speaking of people in Arlington one of texas" largest cities in one of its biggest metropolitan areas

[sui generis]

67. I'll bet you a whole buncha money

that you can separate your churchgoin' population by several demographics several different ways.

My experience in the world of big business is that most young people don't go to church regularly and the higher you go on the food chain the less important religion is, regardless of your political views.

I know plenty o' plenty of McMansion people in Arlington who haven't set foot in a church in years.

[Larkspur]

4. Actually Dean has been criticising the GOP as a Party of Pharisees

Dean critique GOP policies that hurt the poor and Dean said that is against the teaching's of Jesus.

Religious people who vote GOP are Pharisees. They believe in the fantasy that everyone can pull themselves up from their bootstraps and be millionaires. If you are not a millionaire, it's your fault, not the fault of a human-made economic system that favors the wealthy over everyone else.

Jesus actually had a parable that condemned this "self-made millionaire" mentality, and Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. gave a sermon on it called "Why Jesus called a man a Fool". That foolish man was a wealthy man who spent more time hording his wealth than using it to make his community better.

These GOP Christians refuse to see how government programs help the poor and Middle Class. Closed minds are difficult to open especially when the corporate sponsored MSM promotes class warfare against the Middle Class and poor.

[Bluerthanblue]

12. a HEARTY amen, and

while i didn't support Dean in the primaries, because i felt his honesty and candor would put him out-side the 'electablity' line- His way of
REAL 'plain-spoken'* truth, gave a very much needed boost to the Democratic party, which seemed neutered since 9/11, with very few exceptions- Such as Carol Mosley Braun.

* (versus *'s mis-handling the language, and calling THAT plain speaking)

Dean is calling out the Pharasees, like you point out- like MLK pointed out- like JESUS pointed out-

Jesus Warns the Religious Leaders
"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, "The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the Scriptures. So practice and obey whatever they say to you, but don't follow their example. For they don't practice what they teach. They crush you with impossible religious demands and never lift a finger to help ease the burden.

"Everything they do is for show. On their arms they wear extra wide prayer boxes with Scripture verses inside,* and they wear extra long tassels on their robes. And how they love to sit at the head table at banquets and in the most prominent seats in the synagogue! They enjoy the attention they get on the streets, and they enjoy being called `Rabbi.'* Don't ever let anyone call you `Rabbi,' for you have only one teacher, and all of you are on the same level as brothers and sisters......The greatest among you must be a servant. But those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

"How terrible it will be for you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you won't let others enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and you won't go in yourselves.* Yes, how terrible it will be for you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. For you cross land and sea to make one convert, and then you turn him into twice the son of hell as you yourselves are.

"How terrible it will be for you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest part of your income, but you ignore the important things of the law-justice, mercy, and faith. You should tithe, yes, but you should not leave undone the more important things. Blind guides! You strain your water so you won't accidentally swallow a gnat; then you swallow a camel!

"How terrible it will be for you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! You are so careful to clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside you are filthy-full of greed and self-indulgence! Blind Pharisees! First wash the inside of the cup, and then the outside will become clean, too.

"How terrible it will be for you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs-beautiful on the outside but filled on the inside with dead people's bones and all sorts of impurity. You try to look like upright people outwardly, but inside your hearts are filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness.

(from Matthew's account in the bible)

i've come to admire, and be grateful for Mr.Dean's courage, and honest, (though somethimes not easy to hear) willingness to call a spade a spade- The way that *'s administration has USED 'Jesus' infuriates me- trotting out religious 'buzz words' to tease the gullable- Democrats (in my opinion) live thier faith- they don't have to 'voice it'- the actions of being compassionate to the needy, merciful to the 'unlovable', and NOT hoarding up treasures on earth, speak of real 'faith'-
again, in my opinion-

Howard Dean may not claim to be the 'religious right' - but he advocates living 'right' according to the directions that Jesus left to us- and i applaud him for it, even if the message is not seasoned with sugar, or offends those who feel 'convicted' by the message.

sorry for the rant-

[Lerkfish]

5. oh yes, progressive christians should single-handedly reform

right wing nutjob christians. We should wave a magic wand and convert them all to sanity.
We should do so alone, as well, without help from any secular progressives, who prefer to armchair quarterback the offensive, secure in the feeling they've exhorted their christian comrades to tilt against that windmill, and can confidently return to whatever else they were doing, knowing they've done their own small part to fix the problem: by relegating all the work to someone else.

Oh, thou brave and stalwart non-christian progressive! Let us glean from your wisdom! you, who are so sucessful at routing the non-christian right wingers and bringing them to sanity, who take complete responsibility for arighting the wrongs in the secular world, who have healed the election fraud and ended the republican juggernaut of hubris and meglomania! Thank you for taking on the secular ills single-handedly while chiding us to assault the rightwing religious nutjobs who would kill their own mothers as heathens for suggesting there is allegory in the bible and the evolution is real. Surely, they will listen to strangers like us whom they despise as a blight on christianity. Surely, they will harken to our sanity from the insular depths of their own paranoic ramblings. Surely, now that you've ordered us to do so, we will magically transform racism and bigotry by saying "hey guys! you don't have to be racist! you can be tolerant!"

Thank you, thank you, for setting us progressive christians aright in our misguided delusion that following our religion in our own way without trying to change the religious views of others is the best way to achieve our potential. Instead, you have shone the light that WE MUST COERCE OTHERS TO OUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS AGAINST THEIR WILL.. only by becoming as overbearing as the religious right wing nutjobs will we defeat them....by BECOMING THEM.

thank you for your wisdom.

[undeterred]

7. You hit the nail right on the head, lerkfish

Lets clean up the Christian right while the rest of the Left sit back ridiculing us, giving orders, and drinking margaritas. :shrug:

[Lerkfish]

9. hey, you said it all in one line what took me several paragraphs...

good job!

"Lets clean up the Christian right while the rest of the Left sit back ridiculing us, giving orders, and drinking margaritas."

[trotsky]

15. And being told to sit down, shut up, put up with "Under God"

and "In God We Trust" and religious oaths and etc. etc.

You're not willing to help fight our battles, instead being content to sit back, ridicule us, give orders, and drink margaritas.

[undeterred]

18. Progressive Christians are very much involved in Church State issues

And I've never seen a Christian giving orders to or ridiculing an atheist on this messageboard. Ever.

[trotsky]

23. I guess you haven't been in the same threads I have.

Oh well.

[Zhade]

87. Really? I have.

Atheism has been blamed for Stalin and Mao, and atheists accused of "apologizing for genocide".

Atheists have been called frightened, "scared of god", childish, selfish, and ignorant.

Oh yes, atheists have been maligned on DU, at least as much as Christians.

The major difference is that atheists are not organized in any fasion, yet are attacked as if they are, while Christians are united under some common beliefs, yet sometimes are attacked for not being monolithic.

Both sides do it, but Christians aren't the persecuted ones in this debate. It's atheists, far and away - no Christian has to face a law that they cannot be a public servant for their beliefs, whereas atheists are banned in some areas from running for office due to their LACK of belief.

[Lerkfish]

20. are progressive christians doing that to you?

I haven't seen it, certainly it doesn't come from me, at any rate. I'm right there beside you, standing AGAINST prayer in schools, and FOR the separation of church and state...

so what's your point?

[trotsky]

22. My point is to show that blanket statements will get you in trouble.

Like the one you made, and then the concise one you posted your vehement agreement with.

But yes, progressive Christians on DU have indeed said that people like me who oppose religious slogans in our government and on our currency should "get over it" and realize we have more important issues to worry about.

[undeterred]

32. I've never said that and I don't think that way.

My father was an atheist. I was not raised to be a Christian or an atheist- I chose to be a Christian. And I chose to be the kind of Christian that made room in the world for atheists.

I understand why even the symbolic involvment of religion in government is upsetting to atheists, I really do.

The broad brush works both ways. I tend to avoid the religion posts because I am sick of seeing the "go fix the fundies" argument over and over from people who are sarcastic and hostile and do not respect religion at all.

Respect breeds respect. My father respected the right of his children to choose to believe in God or not believe in God. That goes a long long way for me. But I owe the same respect to fundies as I do to atheists.

Now when it comes to mixing anyone's religion with government that's a different story.

[trotsky]

34. Nor did I say that YOU had said those things.

I said "progressive Christians" had done those things in response to Lerkfish's comment. I'm glad you haven't, but you did make the blanket statement saying that us non-religious types will just sit back and "drink margaritas."

[Lerkfish]

41. can you provide linkage?

just curious. I'd like to see actual references to progressive christians telling you to shut up and put up with intrusion of church into schools and the elimination of the separation of church and state.

I was responding DIRECTLY to the OP. You've made more generalized accusations of things that don't exist in this thread. FWIW.

[trotsky]

45. Maybe if you quoted me properly.

What you say is:

I'd like to see actual references to progressive christians telling you to shut up and put up with intrusion of church into schools and the elimination of the separation of church and state.

What I WROTE was:

But yes, progressive Christians on DU have indeed said that people like me who oppose religious slogans in our government and on our currency should "get over it" and realize we have more important issues to worry about.

But even with your mangling of what I said, yes, there HAVE been DUers (who have not been banned) who have said that prayer in schools or at school functions is OK, that it's no big deal to post the 10 Commandments, and that by singling out these and similar issues the nonreligious are "scaring" Christians away from the Democratic party. You'll just have to take my word for it, because I really don't care to use generic search terms to wade through thousands of irrelevant posts to find the handful you want.

[Lerkfish]

49. of course you don't...however....

YOU were the one who brought up those "other posts".
I'm just supposed to take your word for it....mmmmmmkay.

but even if you're correct, and you've been told that, two wrongs do make a right. What I complained about is wrong, and what you're complaining about is wrong. One wrong does not give blanket permission to commit another wrong.

[trotsky]

53. Here's the problem, once again.

Christian whackjobs are calling most of the shots today.

I (and many other nonreligious people) feel that the problem isn't that they've just got some twisted view of Xianity, but rather in the nature of religion itself, whereby people are encouraged to believe in unseen external forces, suspend rational judgment, and hope that it will all work out in the end when the cosmic grandpappy sets it all right.

HOWEVER, when we have expressed such thoughts even here on DU, we are told that we are being hostile and off-putting to religious people, scaring them away, yada yada yada. I'm sorry if you don't believe me that such exchanges have occurred. You can call me a liar if that makes you feel better.

What you're complaining about is the acknowledgment of the reality that atheists and other non-Christians have no footing whatsoever to tell religious right wackos that they're not being "good Christians."

Liberal Xians, if they truly believe their faith has the value and redeeming features they insist it does, must use it as an instrument for change and bring your wayward flocks back into the fold.

[Sooner75]

58. Well said, trotsky

A lot of Democrats seems to believe or seem to want to believe that this "anti-religion" perception doesn't really matter. It matters, and we'd better address it.

Try to visualize the last electoral map with all that Red. It matters in those Red areas quite a bit.

[beam me up scottie]

52. The "fix the fundies" argument has

been made mostly by the liberal christians on this board.

You would have noticed this if you had bothered to read any of the threads instead of assuming they were "from people who are sarcastic and hostile and do not respect religion at all."

"Respect breeds respect"

What an ironic thing to say coming from someone who posted this:

" Lets clean up the Christian right while the rest of the Left sit back ridiculing us, giving orders, and drinking margaritas. "

How is that respect?

[Bluerthanblue]

43. anyone who tells you to

'get over it'- is encouraging you to deny something- you have to 'get through' it- meaning go through the issue and come out the other side either changed, or more determined than ever that you are on the correct journey (imo)

maybe those who tell you to just get over it, are hoping you will, rather than having to defend the very thing they're encouraging you to avoid examining????

no issue is 'unimportant'- speak your peace- don't let anyone discourage you.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. Thank you, Lerkfish

Every time I've pointed out that not all--or even most--Christians are right-wing nut jobs, some atheist pipes up and says, "Well why don't you change them?" or "You're as guilty as they are if you don't try to change them."

Yeah, right. Why don't the left-wing atheists convert all the right-wing atheists (like most libertarians)?

There's no "Christian central" that would allow a liberal Episcopalian like me to change (or even be heard by) fundamentalists. We're in totally different worlds, for the most part, and they have been brainwashed in their total information environment to suspect and reject anything a liberal Christian says. As far as they're concerned, we're actually worse than atheists, because we "have access to the Truth and reject or distort it."

Asking liberal Christians why they're not converting fundamentalists is like asking Canadians why they're not changing America.

[trotsky]

25. Consider this, Lydia.

Dean is bashed because his statements supposedly imply that the Democratic party is an anti-religious one.

That's how a lot of atheists get bashed on here. That we should remain silent with our religious criticisms because we don't want to offend the religious and scare them away from the party.

OK, so if we're told to shut up, who is left to fight the right-wing religious nuts?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. The followers of the right-wing nuts

are probably as hopeless as any brainwashed zombie. They already think that anyone who is outside their little world is in league with Satan or deluded by him, so there's not a lot you can do with that mindset.

The potential problem comes with the politically unsavvy but religious typical Middle American types. If they think that the Democratic Party is against not just right-wing nuttery but also religion in general, that may not make them join the Republicans, but it may make them sit out elections completely.

The way to frame the fight against theocracy is to ask people how they would feel if some other religion tried to force them to follow its practices. Most mainstream Christians are simply not aware of the political alliance between fundies and fascists, and they tend to think of anyone who claims to be Christians as "good." You won't get anywhere bashing religion in general in dealing with this group. However, you can do some thought experiments with them.

For example, you can ask Protestants how they would feel if they were in a majority Catholic area and students in public schools were required to start the day with a recitation of the Rosary. You can ask them how they would feel if they were in a majority Orthodox Jewish area and were forbidden to eat pork and shellfish or to answer the phone or turn on electrical appliances on Saturday. You can ask them how they would feel if they moved to Hawaii, where Buddhism is the most common religion in some areas, and found that their children had to start the school day by reverencing a statue of Amida Buddha and reciting the Nenbutsu. You can ask how they would feel if some Muslims tried to convert their children.

I've seen the light bulb go on behind the eyes when I've done such thought experiments with people.

In all cases, the argument should be framed in terms of Constitutionality, fairness, and neutrality among worldviews.

If people argue that there can be no morality without religion, point out that laws against murder, theft, rape, and other crimes exist in countries that practice all religions and no religion.

Laws banning murder and theft are part of the universal human code of conduct and are necessary for a functioning society. Laws banning abortion or discriminating against gays or requiring women to wear veils are codification of the tenets of particular religions and should not be imposed on society as a whole.

[trotsky]

69. You do realize...

that your total rejection of overtures to "fix" the religious right pretty much confirms our opinions of religion in general, correct?

Your strategy is indeed valid, if limited. I myself use those same examples when caught up in some church/state discussions, and it does tend to open some eyes.

But the liberal Christian sits in an awkward spot. Here you claim to worship a magnificently powerful being who loves and cares for us, but who is powerless to address corruption in its message to humans, OR that its lack of interference is due to rules that it has set up whereby it just can't tinker with our "free will."

This very concept disturbs the shit out of me, and I want to address IT rather than dance around the issues. But I can't, because then I'm "scaring" people away from the Democratic party because I'm "anti-religion."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

79. Your worldview is your worldview; I'm talking about

what actually works with apolitical mainstream Christians: asking them to have some empathy with people who think differently than they do.

If your aim is to have people stop doing things that are hurtful or offensive to you, then you should try to have them imagine a similar situation that would be hurtful or offensive to them and ask them how they would feel.

If your aim is to browbeat people and feel superior to them, that's another matter entirely.

[trotsky]

85. I think your signature says it all.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."

The fundies would agree with your quote 100%. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell echoed that sentiment exactly when they blamed homosexuals for 9/11.

You can go on treating the symptoms, but until the underlying causes are addressed, it'll be a constant losing battle.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

86. I'm referring to the Iraq War, not gays getting married

and whether you call it God, karma, or just "what goes around comes around," we'll end up paying for this war one way or another, as every aggressive nation in history has eventually.

[trotsky]

88. Doesn't really matter what you are referring to.

The sentiment is the same. It's an attempt to portray yourself as being on the same side of God. "God is appalled at what my enemies are doing." Thing is, liberal and conservatives can throw that around equally because no one really knows what God wants. It doesn't get us anywhere closer to a resolution.

[Bluerthanblue]

37. don't you think

that fundies should be reminded of what the truth really is?
i'm not saying preach at them- but Jesus' anger, and only violent action involved those who 'claimed' 'religion' yet lived lives of greed and hate-

i'm glad when i was a fundie, those who weren't countered me on my foolish, narrow-minded, selfish perspective-

it helped-

even though i was hard-headed, and didn't want to 'know' what i deep down was hearing was 'truth' eventually, i couldn't deny the reality of what was being laid bare-

i'm not saying it is 'out job' to counter the lies of the fundementalist mentality- but when we can point out the hyprocricy, to THEM- and to those who lump all 'christians' into the same 'pot'- it's worth, speaking what you believe to be truth, and let them come to thier own conclusions-

Religion and politics don't mix- but living your beliefs and voting your truth is what matters- and WILL bring change in the 'long haul'-

[beam me up scottie]

40. Bullshit.

What a ridiculous thing to say.
What is a "right wing atheist" ?
What is a "left wing atheist" ?
And how does one go about converting someone who lacks belief in gods?

[Lerkfish]

46. atheists are neither conservative or liberal?

just trying to understand you, here.

I think this is the crux of the misunderstanding...

If I understand you correctly, you are saying within atheism there is no right or left wing...ok, but I think there must be both republican and democratic atheists?
Therefore, they are atheists first, and secondarily politically affiliated.
(If I understand you correctly)

This is how many progressive christians are: they are christians first, and secondarily politically affialited. Unfortunately, in the fundie flavor of christianity, the two are inextricable, and perhaps even their right wing politics TRUMPS their religion, which is the overall problem.

[beam me up scottie]

62. Atheists do not have a religion.

We have no common philosophy or beliefs.
Therefore one atheist has absolutely no bearing on what another thinks or believes.

Liberal christians DO have something in common with the fundamentalists.

I don't expect you to "convert" or "fix" other christians.
I don't think the talibornagains are "fixable".

What I have seen frequently are liberal christians trying to get the word out that the reichwing doesn't own god or speak for him.

I don't believe atheists expect you to fight the reichwing by yourself.

On the contrary, we have been fighting them for decades and appreciate our liberal christian allies.

It is unfair for you to accuse us of sitting back and doing nothing.

[Lerkfish]

68. ok...

I'll agree That's unfair to acccuse you of sitting back and doing nothing....however, I dont' think I said exactly that (cant check in response mode though, so I might have). My point was that I'm tired of progressive christians being told its our responsibility to "fix' fundies.
for several reasons:

1. its not realistic
2. it allows some to abdicate responsibility, which is dangerous. As long as some perceive it to be only a christian problem, the battle is lost. The real problem is that NO religious group or any group for that matter, should be able to commandeer the govt. to their own pet causes. If we do achieve a miracle and bring fundie christians into a state of tolerance and enlightenment, then while we're doing that, the scientologists or (insert group name here) will simply do the same thing, as long as the structure allows it.
3. It tends to make progressive christians feel that we are being punished for fundie sins, and UNLESS we fix it, we are not worthy to be here at all.

[beam me up scottie]

75. And I agree with you.

However MOST of the threads I have seen on DU advocating that liberal christians "take back" their religion have been from liberal christians.

You do not need to explain to me why you are offended by the op, we've been down that road before, remember?

If you are offended, by all means, say so.

I just don't understand why you would agree with the poster who said:
"Lets clean up the Christian right while the rest of the Left sit back ridiculing us, giving orders, and drinking margaritas."

You might have been agreeing with the premise but he insulted all of the non-christian left-wingers.

[Lerkfish]

78. ahhhh. now I understand.

I was agreeing with the "ridiculing us, giving orders" part.
sorry for the confusion. Although I would have picked a different word than "ridiculing".
I was mainly impressed at how succinct the post was, and how long mine was, saying close to the same thing.

The margaritas part I thought was unimportant to the rest. Now I see that's what is causing the problem.

Teaches me to be more careful when I applaud posts.

[beam me up scottie]

82. I dislike the broad brush

as much as you do.
It alienates our allies.
I don't consider talibornagains "allies".
They are the enemy of all liberals including the vast majority of liberal christian du'ers.

No worries, LF!

Peace out

[undeterred]

84. ..

whatever

[Lydia Leftcoast]

55. A left-wing atheist is an atheist with left-wing political beliefs

A right-wing atheist is an atheist with right-wing political beliefs. (Leo Strauss, who mentored the neocons, was apparently an example, as was Ayn Rand.)

You can convert someone from one set of political beliefs to another.

That's all.

[beam me up scottie]

63. Yeah, right.

I'll just go to the atheist church tonight and speak from the pulpit.

I'm sure all of our atheist cable programs will carry the message live, since the networks are all owned by atheists.

:eyes:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. Yes, that was my point

It would be absurd.

Think about it.

[beam me up scottie]

70. Think about what?

I neither expect nor believe that you can convince zealots to be anything other than zealots.

And I resent the hell out of YOUR insinuation that we do.

Try reading my posts and then YOU think about it.

Nice broad brush you're using today, care to trade it in for some reason?

[trotsky]

72. I'm thinking about it, but I just don't see it.

Atheists aren't organized. We have nothing in common other than we're all human beings.

Christians, however, all claim to be worshipping the same god. A god that SHOULD care about how its message is being mistakenly preached or being used to harm rather than help, right?

Liberal Xians have a common frame of reference with Conservative Xians that liberal/conservative atheists simply do not.

The inability of your supposedly liberal god, as well as its followers, to "straighten out" the members of the wayward flock, is a problem in and of itself. How can you just blame them, when your god supposedly created us all?

[beam me up scottie]

50. Lerkfish,

why are you jumping on that poster's wagon?
Broad brushing is the tool of the closed-minded and those who cannot make their point without smearing an entire group of people.
Honestly, do you really believe that?

[Lerkfish]

56. I"m using sarcastic voice to make a point to the OP.

look at the walk off line of the orignal post.
I'm making a point, or trying to.

is there a problem with that? Should I adjust my posting in order to make no more points?

[beam me up scottie]

74. "is there a problem with that"

Yes.

There is a problem when you insult me as well as other non-christian left-wingers to "make your point".

But you go right on ahead, just remember that this atheist never did the same to you.

[Lerkfish]

80. sigh...

never mind, counterproductive post on my part.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. I doubt that's the point...

since Christianity is far more diverse than the frivolous public debate would make it seem. Even among the fundagelicals, there is wide diversity of belief and action. They support homeless shelters and soup kitchens, too. Some are even environmentalists. And most of them have gay family members in their churches that they try to reconcile with their stated beliefs.

What has been debated within "liberal" churches is just how we can get our message out without being as shrill as they are. And, quite frankly, since they have turned the debate to gays and abortion, we have enough problems internally dealing with those. It's tough to organize a message when we can't agree on what that message would be.

[Sooner75]

26. yes but...

It's my understanding that the fundamentalist stands on things come from rather selective reading of the Old Testament. Pulling one or two of the "Thou shalt nots" out of a whole list...many of which would put a lot of modern people on the wrong side.

What I'm suggesting is that progressive Christians might ought to take on the task of coolly and rationally pointing out that the religious right is taking liberties in their interpretation of the Bible. In other words, not letting them get away with it unchallenged.

[undeterred]

35. Its not the only difference between one Bible interpretation and another

Its the difference between people who have learned critical thinking (or accept the religious leadership of one who thinks and interprets the Bible critically) and those who have never learned critical thinking.

Those who have never learned critical thinking feel free to revise American history, disregard evolutionary theory, re-interpret the constitution, and even misrepresent the medical status of a person in a vegetative state according to their theo-political needs. The gap is so much wider that some people realize.

[Lerkfish]

57. good post, yes, that's the REAL issue here: critical thinking.

thank you.

[Sooner75]

60. OK

Why not put some critical thinking out there? Critical thinking about the Bible.

Some of them MIGHT start thinking

worth a shot

[Lerkfish]

65. just out of curiousity: what are you trying to do here?

you seem to be riling up several different viewpoints...stirring the pot, so to speak.

why?

besides, you keep missing the point that OUR critical thinking is not missing, but being conditioned against critical thinking on their part is the problem.

you seem to be suggesting we can transplant critical thinking to someone else. I'd be curious to see how that could happen, and amazed.

but again, you keep putting that off onto progressive christians ONLY to solve the problem. Why is that? Do you not take ownership of how the secular portion of america should be structured so that a takeover by a small religious group CAN"T happen? Shouldn't THAT be the goal? Because even if we enlighten fundies, what's to stop some OTHER group from taking the govt? Like scientologists, for example.

The best course would be to strenghten restrictions on religious access to power, and THAT can be worked on by every citizen, regardless of religious belief.

Honestly, that's a better goal. This "you go fix it" mentality serves only to drive wedges and never addresses a viable solution.

[Sooner75]

73. I think I'm being consistent here

I began with a post about the Democratic Party being perceived as being "Anti-Religion". I also said that I thought that we need to challenge that perception and offered a suggestion: getting progressive people of faith to organize better and engage better.

What I seem to be hearing from some of you is that engaging the Righteous Right and their assertions is a lost cause...a waste of time. Fine, you've said that.

I'm interested in discussing how to address the perception that the Democratic Party is "anti-religion." If you don't think that we CAN to do, perhaps you ought to move on to another discussion thread.

[beam me up scottie]

76. "Those who have never learned critical thinking"

also like to insult non-christian left-wingers.

So what does that make you?

[Lerkfish]

54. benign ignorance on your part, I think...

you are operating under a couple of assumptions:

1. that fundies can be involved in a cool and rational discussion wherein their religious beliefs are pointed out to be in error.

2. That fundies are more likely to listen to progressive christians than anyone else cooly and rationally discussing their erroneous interpretations.

3. That progressive christians are not or haven't been challenging fundies.


now, here's the reality:

No fundie will ever allow you to tell them they're wrong about their religion. Have you tried it? I have, many times, to no avail. That's why I refer to it as "tilting at windmills".
They view such discussions as blasphemy and will either shout over you, condem you, threaten you or walk away. Try it and see.

Fundies are LESS likely to listen to progressive christians on the matter of religion, because they view us as backslid, or worse, and therefore a corrupting influence. Ironically, they're MORE likely to listen to someone not religously affiliated, because in the back of their minds they think they can convert YOU and might actually listen to what you're saying in preparation to do so. Like I said, its ironic.

Ever heard of the UCC church to which I belong? our leaders have been getting the message of inclusion out, and reacting to bizarre fundie things like calling spongebob gay, etc. The fundies get more and better press, but that doesn't mean we aren't doing something.

[Bluerthanblue]

27. i believe the 'message'

is supposed to be the 'gospel'- of Jesus- which means 'good news'

isn't it? and what i'm hearing from those who scream 'death to fags' and 'baby killers' and 'God bless America (over all other peoples)' is hardly "good news"

Be kind, live humbly, treat others as you would have them treat you- don't TALK about your faith, walk it- give freely, even to those you don't believe will 'pay you back' or 'deserve' it. Don't march around the world telling everyone how they 'SHOULD' live, while your old people and children, and 'lesser thans' are dying, and freezing to death, and choosing between medicine and food. While mansions are being built to be used for a week-end a year (if that) and others live under bridges, in sewer pipes and cardboard boxes????

i believe 'we' know the message- and i believe the 'call' is not to 'talk' religious- but to live it- something i've discovered the Democratic Party has been doing, (or trying to do) for a long time- despite the fact that it means not having or keeping 'more of your money' as W seems to think is so important. His 'declared' God doesn't agree with him- nor does Jesus care about those who talk alot but do nothing, what father would give his son a stone, when he asked for bread?????- maybe a bush father.

[Tux]

19. Yes

We must become like the far right. If they want theocracy, we have to be more militant, louder, and stronger for democracy. We're not letting Jefferson et al down.

Don't like non-Christians, join the far right. It's our nation too and we have a say. We do criticize Christianity a lot but look how it is portrayed. People see the believers of a religion to see what the religion teaches. How else can people think all Muslims are terrorists? If all we see is hate, Christianity is all about hate. That simple. Liberal Christians bitching about non-Christians won't help the image either.

Want to change it? Write letters to newspapers, email news shows, call in 700 Club if they allow and get your voice heard. Hell, my Congressmen is a Republican and I got him to view Wicca, UU, Deism, and Buddhism as positive spiritualities that he claimed to respect. If I can reach one person to be tolerant of other religions, we can reach the right and left Christians.

[emanymton]

8. Why Would You Want To Engage It?

_Pandering_ to "religion and values" is not leadership. The Washington D.C. mind-set does not represent the political positions of a majority of people.

Liberals and Democrats must understand their core beliefs and stick to them. State one's political beliefs simply, clearly and in one's honest terms.

The people will hear and listen.

[Village Idiot]

10. What can he do? The Democratic Philosophy is one of INCLUSION

If the fundie fuckwits do NOT get the fact that the Democrats dupport ALL RELIGIONS, CREEDS and RACES, how can you get through to them??

Most do not even realize they have been sold down river by the ReThuglicans already...as soon as it is politically expedient and "constitutionally possible," there will be NO religious rights other than the NATIONAL religion...

[undeterred]

11. Do you think "fundie fuckwits" would feel welcome in the Democratic

party? Non-political fundamentalist Christians? Do you think they would feel welcome at DU?

[Sooner75]

13. I think not

[beam me up scottie]

47. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm,

would fundamentalists feel welcome in a progressive liberal internet forum?

Gee, that's a tough one...:eyes:

We are not here to kiss the fundy's collective ass.

If they want to join a forum that caters to zealots, Freeperville's always looking for more christian talibanites.

I hope to hell DU never turns into a haven for fundamentals of ANY KIND.

[Lerkfish]

83. I think the problem is, neither do progressive christians feel welcome

that's the problem, I think.

[trotsky]

89. Oh, and how so?

Is it because we ran an outspoken atheist in the last presidential election? And the one before that?

Is it because of all the religion bashing that nearly every Democrat does every time they're on TV?

Or would it be because at the Democratic National Convention last year, every speaker closed not with "God Bless America" but "There are no gods, only superstition!"

:sarcasm:

[Sooner75]

14. Still haven't seen any real ideas about the "anti-religion" perception

[sui generis]

24. we didn't create the perception

that's a tool the other side is using, liberally, if I may say so.

We are inclusive. We have a problem with removing the barrier between separation of church and state, and to some people that is "anti-religious".

We cannot win by trying to "out-religion" the other side - so we shouldn't waste our energy on that particular path. All we can do is underscore that we are inclusive of EVERYBODY regardless of what they believe or don't believe, so long as we an all agree on progressive ideas that support a healthy, free and progressive society that can be respected around the world.

[Sooner75]

30. the perception seems to be there nevertheless

Remember, it was a Democratic pollster who mentioned it in the Newsweek article.

Here in Texas, I see it everywhere. Churchgoing people seem to see the Democratic Party as the opposition. I think it's a mistake to let that perception stand.

[sui generis]

36. I'm saying, who cares.

Not every church is red, and we can't change the ones that are.

It's a waste of time to try. Red voting "Churchgoing people" also have a lot of other perceptions about the world that are a waste of time to try to change.

They think that who you love is a moral issue. They think that women should not be able to choose what happens to their bodies, that birth control is a moral issue, that stem cells from blastocysts are murder, and that abstinence is the only sex education that should be taught, that the world is only six thousand years old.

None of those perceptions are things that I give a damn about, until they try to legislate their views into my life. And they're all about legislating those "perceptions" for everyone.

So no, quite frankly, I don't care what SOME people in SOME churches think - they're not a good target, and we won't be reinforcing our own base if we pursue them.

[Lerkfish]

61. excellent post, and to add to that:

not only are they not a good target, continually attempting to make progressive christians be the foot soldiers to attack that target has made progressive christians a target of other progressives...so not only are those churches extremely resistant to change, but to alienate those christians who ALREADY ARE progressive seems extremely counterproductive, splintering of the party and doing the republican's work for them.

[beam me up scottie]

28. Sure you have.

It's sop.
Don't ever ever ever ever ever criticize xians because you might offend them.

[Tux]

31. Anti-religion

Liberals have that view for supporting separation of church and state, removal of mandatory school prayers, and not being Christian. Many are non-Christian which even liberal Christians don't feel comfortable around us. I'm all for a secular nation so people can be evangelical, Buddhist, Atheist, Humanist, Worshiper of Debian, or Follower of Ayn Rand. By including all spiritual paths, we appear to hate Christianity by appearing to drop it. I got a fundie to show me respect when I told her I read the Jefferson Bible and use that to refer to Jesus' teachings. I had to explain it to her but she liked the idea of a compact, straight to the point book about Jesus. She still thinks I'm going to Hell but we get along better now.

[MaineDem]

29. The DNC is doing religious outreach

Not to the extent the RNC has been (RNC has over 14 full-time staffers doing Religious Outreach)but it's an issue being discussed down to state levels. DNC has recently hired a full-time person for this.

There are many Democrats of all different faiths and they shouldn't be ignored. Their values are, in most case, our values as well. We just need to let them know that.

Even the Choice issue has many ideas that all parties can agree on...the need to lessen the number of abortions, for example. Instead of butting heads with the religious Catholics, for instance, we can sit down and talk about our similar views - better education, family planning, care for the children after birth, etc.

There's no reason Democrats can't reach out to voters of faith and invite them in to become part of the solution. We can't afford to ignore them or write them off to the Republicans.

[Sooner75]

33. This is good, but....

The Religious Right has an extensive organization outside the Republican Party. I don't know their history, but I don't think they rose up as an outreach of the GOP. I think the RR and the GOP were both ongoing organizations that "found" each other.

I'm concerned that an outreach to people of faith may not grow as fast enough. If progressives of faith organize OUTSIDE the party, that may work better and faster.

What do you think?

[MaineDem]

38. I think you're right

There are organizations now, such as Peace and Justice groups, that are predominately left thinking.

Knowing the Democratic Party as I do we will probably be slow in getting this outreach off the ground so you're absolutely right. These groups are already organized now and the Dems should tie in with them rather than try to reinvent the wheel.

[sui generis]

39. yes but

we're not ever going to successfully reach out to the most profoundly fundamentalist.

Those guys are completely authoritarian and as a result want only one set of rules to apply to everyone - theirs.

We need to recognize that we are never going to get an orange to vote for anything but oranges, and our efforts into the religious community need to be aimed at the mainstream with a message of hope, instead of fear (of evil gays, evil abortionists, evil liberals, evil evil evil).

[Sooner75]

42. I agree

The target is not the center of the Religious Right base, but around the edges.

I think a lot of non-fundamentalist Christians are reachable...Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Catholics, etc.

[MaineDem]

44. You're absolutely right

Or rather, you're correct! :)

We will never get the RR to vote with us but I don't think that's the intention. We need to reach out to our traditional supporters who voted last time with the GOP thinking their values are best met by the Republicans. We did a poor job of connecting with them in '04 and it hurt us badly.

[Sparkly]

71. His point was they're MONOLITHIC. Christianity isn't the only religion!!

In other words, our party is more diverse in terms of religious views, skin color, ethnic background, etc... The media is spinning this into a criticism of religion or a statement that we're "secular."

Crazy!! :crazy:

[Igel]

77. But they're not monolithic.

They're markedly less diverse, and the difference isn't just one of degree, but of accuracy.

At least Dean didn't say "all" (as I first thought he did), but mostly. He recognized the limited diversity, and phrased it accurately.

[Igel]

81. There are a few problems with how the dem v religion/Xianity

business is viewed.

First, although the perception among some RW groups is that their breed of Xianity is dominant--even if just locally--their culture is not allowed to be expressed. My wife loves Xmas and resents it being ripped out of thes schools; I've never had any use for it. I was the fundie Xian, she was raised and still is atheist. Cultural trappings look religious but are devoid of most religious meaning for many people participating.

Making it even worse (sort of 1(b)) is having diversity-oriented classes: "we" can't have Xmas, but are taught what Muslims and Hindus do. It leaves the strong impression that it's not religion, it's Xianity, that's the problem.

Second, a lot of fundamentalist Xianity will take issue with much of the church/state argument, but in a way most dems miss. We don't want anti-gay legislation--too religious. But some dems base government services and income redistribution on Jesus' teachings. You can't argue against one view of biblical teaching being imposed, while arguing for another. Pointing out their hypocrisy doesn't mitigate "ours".

Third, a lot of fundamentalist Xianity deals with whether bible "principles" apply at a collective or individual level, and how the teaching's enforced. I think it's a difference in a "personal" Jesus vs. a collective view of society. Fundies and religious dems are at odds: where conservatives want collective-level applicability; and where dems want collective-level applicatibility, conservatives want individual level. Dems reject many of the fundies's collective-level teachings out of hand, and I'm not personally sure what religious dems put in their place (never having been dem and religious at the same time).

I'll leave aside the "critical thinking" jargon and other such things that primarily serve to make us feel good, and make sure the proper attitude towards the "other" is maintained, except to say that their offensive rhetoric is, well, no less amenable to dialog.

[thinkingwoman]

90. Democrats should stand up

and say:

"We're not anti-religion. We're anti-THEOCRACY!!!!"

It should be repeated ad nauseum.