What would bring the Christian Left and the Atheist/Agnostic Left together?

[Taverner]

Honestly - as an agnostic/atheist/non-theist/heathen I feel more in common with Social Justice Christians (and for that matter, social justice Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists) than I do with Objectivist Atheists.

Ayn Rand was an Atheist. Despite our non-belief in a deity, I find nothing worthwhile in her 'might makes right' dogma

Martin Luther King was a Christian. Heck, he was a Preacher! And despite his life's commitment to serving his deity, I find more in common with his philosophies than many other Atheist agnostics

So what could these groups do together?

[supernova]

1. I ponder the same puzzle

from the believer's side of the fence.

:P

Honestly, I don't have much in common with even moderate/conservative Christians, not theologically and not civically. And even being in the 'bible belt" I honestly don't know any fundies. My aunt and uncle used to belong to the Pentacostal Holiness Church, but they are gone now and none of their seven kids are fundies.

I used to be mainstream Presbyterian, but now I'm somewhere between Quaker and episcopal, having done a lot of study on my own the last 10-12 years.

My spiritual life is quite private and publicly, I prefer to work toward a just and equal society for all.

[MineralMan]

2. Ideas alone can do that. The religious stuff is irrelevant.

I won't tell them that I'm an atheist or the reasons for that decision, and they won't try to sell me their deity. We'll just work together on common causes.

Lots of people are already doing that very thing. I'm not sure why religion even comes into the discussion.

[LiberalLoner]

3. I remember seeing nuns marching for civil rights down south...and

as part of the Christian left, I have fed the homeless through my church, which gave me more joy than just about anything else I've ever experienced in life. It feels so good to help even if it's just in some small way.

I think that is where we come together. The desire to make a better world, to serve humanity, to dream of a better future and one that all can share in equally.

P.S. I'm ELCA in case anyone was wondering. Not going to church currently but still identify with that church.

[darkstar3]

4. Unfortunately,

no matter one's faith or lack thereof there is nothing to preclude a person from being an incredible douchnozzle. Ayn Rand, Fred Phelps, Osama Bin Laden, and many more are perfect examples of this.

To answer your question, in a way...I don't think there IS a way to bring the two groups together. Religion is based on in-group/out-group mentality, no matter how liberal the religion might be. This fosters the very division you are trying to eliminate.

The end to strife and conflict is a religious and thought conformity only a couple of shades removed from the chilling vision of Big Head's planet (can't remember names right now) in A Wrinkle in Time.

[LiberalLoner]

5. Oh. I never thought of left-leaning agnostic/athiests as "other" but I'm sure

at least some who go to churches do. In fact I know they do.

I think I'm just a very simple person who isn't able to think in complex ways. I just sort of divide the world into people who want to do harm to me and others and people who want good things for me and others.

I have a belief system, but I respect other belief systems as being just as valid. Can't say I ever tried to convert anyone. Some of my family are athiests. I was asked once why I believed in God, and I just said, "because it makes me feel better to believe." That's really all it is. Life is hard, and this is something that helps me get through it. If it doesn't work for other people, cool, I figure they have other things that help them get through life instead.

[damntexdem]

11. In what respects is ALL religion based on in-group/out-group mentality.

And as far as group dynamics go, how do those among believers differ from those among many unbelievers? Does belonging to a religion mean one has an in-group/out-group mentality? If so, how does this differ from belonging to any other group? Is the problem belonging to any group whatsoever?

And what do you include in your "no matter how liberal the religion might be"? Do you include Unitarian-Universalists, many of whom are agnostics or atheists, or Buddhists for that matter?

[darkstar3]

28. That's an awful lot of questions,

but I'll give it a shot.

Groups with creeds, with centralized belief structures, with expected behavior, etc., all function with an in-group/out-group mentality. Those who conform to our rules/believe as we do are "one of us", those who do not are not. Since I have yet to see a religion that possessed no creeds, no centralized belief structures, and no expected behavior of participants, I feel quite comfortable in saying that religion is an in-group behavior.

How does this differ between believers and non-believers? Non-believers are generally not part of any group. They hold no single creed, no centralized belief structure, and no organized standards of behavior for group members. That's a pretty big difference.

When you branch away from religion and start talking about other types of groups, the concept of in-group vs. out-group still applies. Just look at Democrats vs. Republicans vs. Libertarians vs. Greens vs. "Independents" vs....(Politics is not the only place outside of religion where this happens, it's just the easiest example. Think of your local country club.)

And finally, yes, based on my previous statements about creeds, beliefs, and expected behavior I do in fact include the UUs and the Buddhists.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

73. The UUs have no creedal test. They have principles & sources.

www.uua.org

SIX SOURCES:
The Unitarian Universalist faith draws from six sources:

Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life.

Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love.

Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life.
Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves.

Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.

Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.


SEVEN PRINCIPLES:
Many Unitarian Universalists also find guidance and comfort in these seven principles that our UUA congregations affirm and promote:

The inherent worth and dignity of every person;

Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;

Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;

A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;

The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;

The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;

Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

=================================

[darkstar3]

75. "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths you cling to

depend greatly on your own point of view."

You call it Seven Principles, I call it a creed.

[Jim__]

14. I'm not religious and I've worked with lots of religious people.

I certainly don't find that religious people are impossible to work with.

[darkstar3]

26. Good for you, but of course that's beside the point.

Working together with people on individual causes didn't seem to me to be the point of the OP, and it certainly wasn't the point of my post. I'm talking about unification and the elimination of the constant bickering between the two sides, and I think the OP was too.

[Taverner]

31. Yup

[rug]

17. Ok, you're off the list.

[darkstar3]

27. Of what?

And why should I give a fuck?

[Lost-in-FL]

6. A Pizza Party. nt

[LiberalLoner]

7. LOL n/t

[damntexdem]

8. Less arrogance, on both sides, but especially on the nonbeliever side.

As an agnostic, I am constantly upset by the arrogance of unbelievers who insult believers, not for what they do, or even for the substance of silly beliefs (e.g., Creationism), but for believing at all.

[Taverner]

9. I think you're wrong that one side is more arrogant

There are arrogant Theists and arrogant Atheists

Belief in a deity does not change arrogance

[damntexdem]

12. I may be more aware of arrogance among those on 'my side' re beliefs.

You are certainly right that there is more than enough arrogance to go around.

[LiberalLoner]

10. I have to say, I've seen it too...my niece, who is a wonderful mother and a wonderful person,

has now trained her six-year-old daughter to insult people who celebrate any religious holidays such as Easter or Christmas. "That's just silly" and "You are so stupid for believing those myths."

I bite my tongue.

[humblebum]

16. That's rather sad because it is developing a narrow- minded perspective

in the girl, plus other people will come to label her by how she treats others.

[Taverner]

18. Waste of a perfectly good teachable moment

Explain what the person of faith do, what n means in that context...

[LiberalLoner]

19. The reason I know is because the niece posts on facebook bragging

about how she's taught her kid to say that to other kids and bragging about the hurt and confused looks on the other little kids' faces.

[uberllama42]

76. What was that you said about being a wonderful mother?

What kind of a person brags about their kid hurting other kids? My mom would have been mortified if she saw "hurt and confused looks on the other little kids' faces." I would love to have a six-year-old who realized that religious stories are silly, but my higher priority would be one who cares about others' feelings.

[Jim__]

13. We should be able to at least come together on certain issues.

Just about everyone on the left agrees that torture is wrong, that indefinite detention with no charges is wrong, war is usually wrong. If we don't insist on complete purity of everyone we march with, then we should be able to march together on these issues. Working together on some issues, we may find common ground on other issues.

[hedgehog]

15. The "Christian" Right?

[dmallind]

20. Some ideas

First off they already DO work together in the good works stuff. Any number of atheists volunteer at soup kitchens, homeless shelters etc along with the religious groups whose names are associated with them.

But if you are looking for organizations to co-operate it can only be done between groups who stand firmly against impositions on each others' rights. This will mean that Christian groups must eschew any breach in the separation of church and state, and the atheist group must not interfere with the ability of Christians to worship as they please in private life.

It is not only my own affiliation that makes me see the former as a bigger problem. I certainly know indvidual atheists who would like to restrict religious freedom (and consider them buffoons), but the groups are all too busy trying to stop religious strictures being imposed on the nonreligious, with mostly zero and at best token support from liberal believers, to even have that on their radar even if they were so inclined.

When liberal believers march with us against religious impositions and hegemony in public life, we'll I suspect be very ready to march with them against restrictions on their freedom to be believers. If that's ever necessary of course. I believe many of us already are ready to, and do, march with them against fuindamentalism.

[JoeyT]

25. Of course any time seperation of church and state is brought up

there's a ton of "Stupid whiny atheists" crap. Even here.
And it always comes from the same people that scream like banshees anytime their pet religion is mentioned in less than glowing terms.

Doesn't really matter to me if liberal Christians support separation of Church and State. I still support their freedom to believe as they choose, long as they don't expect me to believe as they choose.

[trotsky]

30. ^^^ What JoeyT said ^^^

:applause:

[struggle4progress]

36. Huh? Who here opposes separation of church and state?

I'd be delighted to see religious notions off the coinage and out of the pledge, and more importantly I'd love to see stuff like the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives scrapped

[mikelgb]

21. the second coming n/t

[rbixby]

22. I think the Christian right will bring them all together NT

[ZombieHorde]

23. I agree with the message of politics being more important than religion. nt

[BurtWorm]

24. We are together. As together as we'll probably ever get.

We vote the same way. Work for the same political causes mostly. We're all DUers under the skin.

I don't think our fundamental disagreement over religion, though, is trivial. But I don't think it ought to get in the way of our agreements over what brings us all to DU, for example.

[Silent3]

39. +1 n/t

[Festivito]

29. Some people would pay to keep us separate because we'd be too powerful.

Call them jerks, the arrogant or douchnozzles, the already powerful will attempt to separate us from democratic ideals. They will pay people to push other peoples buttons until they call each other names for one.

So, what would bring us together is to realize when that is happening and call it as it is.

They will change the idealism of our ideas into lesser mantras and battle cries.

So, to bring us together we could keep our idealism and shun its lesser vestiges.

We need to communicate.

And, in order to communicate, we need to separate the jerks or the paid to disrupt to the side somehow. I just don't know how yet.

[Silent3]

38. So, you're suggesting that either...

...vocal atheists who annoy liberal theists, liberal theists who are scornful of atheists, or both, contain among their number a significant number of paid disruptors, planted by the Powers That Be, to umm... perhaps further their agenda of Total Global Domination?

I feel a need for light weight metallic head apparel coming on. :tinfoilhat:

[Festivito]

47. Well, put some on if it makes you feel good.

If you're just claiming that there are no conspiracies while half our countrymen's wealth has transferred to the hands of a few rich folks, I'd like to ask: Why do you think we have laws against conspiracy?

[Silent3]

48. There's conspiracy with a lower-case 'c' and Grand Conspiracy...

...with an upper-case 'C'. The existence of the commonplace kind (as few as two people planning to rob a bank, as an example) has nothing to do with Grand Conspiracies that purport the existence of vast shadowy networks with aligned agendas, near omnipotence, and stunning competence at pulling off elaborate schemes -- at least competent enough to orchestrate masterful dastardly plans, while not being quite competent enough to escape the detection of the slightly drunk and overly loud guy at the local bar who sees right through it.

Ordinary greed and corruption (some of which is certainly small-c conspiratorial), the power that comes with money, predictable pattens of economic feedback, and the general political apathy of the public is more than enough to explain the transfer of wealth without a vast network of like-minded power players with mysteriously aligned (rather than diverse and competitive) agendas pulling the strings on every little thing.

There's certainly no need to pay people to argue and bicker about religion when there are more than enough people willing to do it for free without the slightest prompting. If you can hook me up with someone who'll pay me to post here, however, I'm all for it.

[Festivito]

50. Oh, these are not small case c conspiracies.

Oh, Grand Conspiracies, oh, vast, shadowy, networks. Oh, requires omnipotence. (Well that stops it right there as only a Deity could be omnipotent.) Oh, but to go on: stunning competence, elaborate schemes, masterful dastardly plans. Oh, and noticed only by loud barflies.

Well, you're right. That's just awful. That guy at the bar would never catch on to a lower case conspiracy. No Oceans 14 for either of you!

By you it was just a matter of time that banks came up with the idea of creating 645-trillion dollars of new money in a world worth a quarter of that. Why, even the Fed only creates two to three trillion for the US dollar. Yup, just a matter of time. Well, unless you think that that figure is part of.. part of.. a .. GRAND CONSPIRACY! Derivatives don't exist. It's all a bunch of yelping from loud barflies! Or, does it exist? How much do you think it is?

Do you want to be paid to post and run. It's not for me. It pays too little. But, some are fast and believe the daily emails Republicans send out. Do you believe that Republicans send out emails? Let me guess, you won't answer both those questions.

[Silent3]

52. There's a difference between acknowledging the existence of PR...

...and seeing manipulation lurking behind every bush, as if all of those people making money off bogus derivatives all have the same political goals, and all agreed, "You know, if we get religious liberals and atheist fighting, all the pieces of our plan for vast wealth will fall into place!"

Google "tulip mania". Economies are feedback system, there are amplifying effects that get out of control. Causes are not in equal size to effects. Interaction of complex systems like political and economic systems is chaotic and unpredictable. Anyone thinking they can not only make the shit hit the fan, but control where each splatter lands, is crazy. The same goes for anyone believing there are puppet masters out there accomplishing just that.

The typical Grand Conspiracist reaction to having one of their pet conspiracies challenged is to counter with, "So you nothing conspiratorial ever happens!?!?" as if their pet conspiracy doesn't need any supporting evidence of its own, the mere existence of any conspiracy, any corruption, justifies all imagined conspiracy and corruption.

Back to this thread: Your conspiracy idea is an explanation looking for a problem. No conspiracy is needed to explain squabbles about religion -- people have been having those arguments over religion for as long as people have had religion.

[Festivito]

54. Look, you won't answer questions or respond to points. You just assert correctness.

The reasoning you offer represents an all black and white, all or nothing thought process. If one sees a conspiracy, then by you, he sees one behind EVERY BUSH. If seen as a money maker, then they must ALL HAVE THE SAME POLITICAL GOALS. If one plan works, then ALL THE PIECES FALL INTO PLACE.

Without the use of words all and every, your points sound flat, with those words, they deserve to be shot down.

This way of thinking seems to be faith based in you. It doesn't get explained, only reiterated with varying examples, each with those hyperbolic words: all, every,... Finally, it all seems to come down to whether or not you like that conspiracy or you don't. If you do, then you'll be cool. If not then you'll be hyperbolic.

At least you admit that conspiracy can happen, as in bank robbery. (Some people won't even acknowledge that!) Do you think a Congress Critter has ever been bribed? Ever, in the history of the world. Do you think that a lobbyist ever bribed one? If so, do you believe that he acted alone, as a rogue, without anyone else knowing? Really, does that have to be the case?

So, what would constitute "supporting evidence" for you. The above, or do I have to show you video of the money changing hands and the recordings of the phone calls placed?

And, do you think that no one ever pushed a minister for a particular sermon topic? Indicating a nice donation coming. Do you think those right-wing radio programs receive a stipend if they spout the right talking points in the right way. Do you think the people who said they received those payments were lying? How about the talking points. Did they receive those emails? Those PR emails that make each radio talk host sound like he's on top of the latest issues. Makes him look good. He gets them for free. But, someone who doesn't sound like a righty, gets dropped from the list. Whap!

Okay, maybe somewhere in there it becomes too much for your belief system. I don't know where, which makes me less likely to know why.

BTW, I knew you would not answer the couple of questions on the prior post. I even hid the text of my prediction in the post.

I wish you well, you and your belief system. But, I'm glad it's not mine.

[Silent3]

56. The burden of proof is yours

If I use a bit of exaggeration with "all" and "every", it's only because I think your conspiratorial viewpoint is worthy of caricature.

Seeing something like people arguing over religious viewpoints and leaping to the conclusion that it practically MUST BE paid "disruptors" fomenting disagreement, as if that kind of arguing isn't utterly natural and spontaneous, is pretty damn close to me to seeing a conspirator lurking behind every bush. It demonstrates an excessive tendency toward conspiratorial thinking where simple not-conspiratorial explanations are readily available.

It has nothing to do with whether such things are possible... almost anything is possible. People have certainly been paid to post on message boards to push any number of views, from political viewpoint to positive reviews of products. When it comes to religious debates, however, why the hell bother? People have been arguing religion on the internet for nearly as long as there has been an internet. I was using Usenet newsgroups back in the mid 90s before most people were even aware than the internet existed, and the flames of the flame wars were already burning bright.

Paying people to argue about religion on the internet to further some particular political goal makes about as much sense as blowing into a hurricane, hoping your extra bit of breath with make one particular house ten miles away fall over, and fall over in a particular direction killing one particular person.

[Festivito]

60. Again, it's back to what you think. You like, it's cool. You don't, you won't.

As usual, many adjectives, little substance.

And, it's not about arguing about religion, it's about choosing which topic for a sermon. Choosing the topics of abortion and homosexuality and marriage just before elections. Gee, what could that voting block possibly infer.

And, they are topics to be covered, so why not, donations accepted. One minister I know was reverse psychologized into it, "Some people tell me I'm supposed not to talk on this topic, so I will!" Fooled. He figured it out later.

Republicans were always in trouble for having more money behind them, because they had large donors that were limited in how much they could donate. There was then, money for other causes to be spent in other ways. Or, do you think FOX news is a news organization.

Aside: Please take my jabs as trying to get to the meat of the topic and not wanting one shred of lingering animosity. I sense something similar in you. It is, however, bed time. Good night, good spar.

[Silent3]

63. What do abortion and homosexuality have to do...

...with this thread? Those topic are definitely used by politicians as wedge issues, quite deliberately so, but those are not dividing points between liberal Christians and atheists. Neither is any of the crap on Fox, which is clearly a right wing propaganda machine. Fox can't even decide consistently between pretending to be "fair and balanced" and practically boasting that it was unabashedly built from the start to push a right wing agenda, so it's not like Fox is a good example of secret manipulation.

How any of that leads to your first post in this thread, and how it relates to liberal Christians and atheists, is a mystery to me. Even if we weren't talking about liberal Christians and atheists, and this were about keeping wingnuts all riled up about abortion and homosexuality, it would be an unnecessary waste of money and effort to post on right wing web sites to stir up the issues themselves of abortion and homosexuality.

More believable (but still requiring proof on a case-by-case basis) is planting rumors about some person or other as being gay or having had something to do with abortion or whatever else stirs up the idiocy of the wingnuts (like the black baby rumor about John McCain). That kind of dirty trick rumor campaign has been used to manipulate elections for a long time. Even then, there are more than enough free-range zealots happy enough to smear someone they don't like that you hardly need to pay or prompt them to make up inflammatory crap and post it online. Being adamantly certain of "paid disruptors" without specific proof in an environment where disruptiveness can arise quite easily spontaneously is absurd.

[Festivito]

64. It's like asking: What to specifics have to do with generalities?

It's like you're saying: Never mind the trees, the forest is everything. What's those damn trees have to do with anything.

That cluster of trees, i.e. topics at churches, is orchestrated. No, says you, it's foolish to talk about the whole forest as being orchestrated. No, I say, I'm talking about that cluster of trees, i.e. those topics being orchestrated. Then, the next, what do those trees have to do with the forest.

When Jefferson hoped the first amendment would effect a wall of separation between church and state, I think his concern was as much for the state as it was for the churches. That if churches began to be political forces, it is the churches along with mankind's freedoms that would suffer.

So, is it a coordinated effort, or not. Do people cajole ministers into talking up certain issues at certain times, or not.

Will they step up those efforts should the left-Christians enjoin the left-non-Christians.

I'm betting that they will, and will do what I can to halt them.

[Silent3]

68. Despite the concerns expressed in the OP...

...liberal Christians and liberal atheists and liberal agnostics all likely vote very much the same way and support pretty much the same candidates. That's true now and likely to remain true in the future, no matter how often liberal theists call atheists things like "fundamentalist atheist", and no matter how often atheists liken belief in God to belief in Santa Claus.

Now you say something like this:

Will they step up those efforts should the left-Christians enjoin the left-non-Christians.

I'm betting that they will, and will do what I can to halt them.

Which sounds like backing down from your original post, a post that made paid disruptors sound much less theoretical than the above post.

The reason to bring up the specifics of abortion and homosexuality, the same specifics you brought up, is that those are particularly strong hot-button issues with the right. Beyond the world of DU, and the R/T forum in particular, however, liberal theist/atheist squabbling doesn't seem to push many buttons, nor have great potential to do so. If I try to warp what I'm saying into your forest analogy (which doesn't seem like a very good analogy to me) you come across as someone who is worrying about Dutch elm disease spreading to a cluster of maples (and someone who is certain the Dutch elm disease was part of a devious scheme to clear a section of the forest).

[Festivito]

71. I get the feeling I've been talking with the Phil Henry program.

I wish you well.

[laconicsax]

32. Perhaps if the Christian Left would stop shielding fundamentalists from criticism.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/gods-dupes1/

Within every faith one can see people arranged along a spectrum of belief. Picture concentric circles of diminishing reasonableness: At the center, one finds the truest of true believers — the Muslim jihadis, for instance, who not only support suicidal terrorism but who are the first to turn themselves into bombs; or the Dominionist Christians, who openly call for homosexuals and blasphemers to be put to death.

Outside this sphere of maniacs, one finds millions more who share their views but lack their zeal. Beyond them, one encounters pious multitudes who respect the beliefs of their more deranged brethren but who disagree with them on small points of doctrine — of course the world is going to end in glory and Jesus will appear in the sky like a superhero, but we can’t be sure it will happen in our lifetime.

Out further still, one meets religious moderates and liberals of diverse hues — people who remain supportive of the basic scheme that has balkanized our world into Christians, Muslims and Jews, but who are less willing to profess certainty about any article of faith. Is Jesus really the son of God? Will we all meet our grannies again in heaven? Moderates and liberals are none too sure.

Those on this spectrum view the people further toward the center as too rigid, dogmatic and hostile to doubt, and they generally view those outside as corrupted by sin, weak-willed or unchurched.

The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism. Ordinary fundamentalist Christians, by maintaining that the Bible is the perfect word of God, inadvertently support the Dominionists — men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin’s Geneva. Christian moderates, by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn. Christian liberals — who aren’t sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally — deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality. And in this way centuries have come and gone without an honest word being spoken about God in our society.

[skepticscott]

33. Exactly

by lending an air of respectability, even virtue, to the irrationality of "faith", so called "moderate" or "liberal" Xstians have helped to legitimize and shield from criticism many of the most egregious offenses of their loonier brethren, all the while disavowing any responsibility.

[struggle4progress]

35. Allow me to remark once again how shallow a thinker Sam Harris is

[trotsky]

37. Then it should be easy for an incredibly deep thinker such as yourself...

to show how he's wrong.

[Deep13]

44. explain nt

[laconicsax]

49. That's rich coming from someone who embodies what Harris is talking about.

Much of what you do in this forum is shield the more extreme elements from criticism.

[struggle4progress]

51. Riiight. No matter what I say, I'm aiding and abetting Dominionists.

It's no good denying it, because you and Sam are onto me: since you do not share my religious views, it follows that I cannot be anything except a useful idiot for rightwing fundamentalists

[laconicsax]

53. Yes, you inadvertently aid them.

Every time you insist and argue that a person's religious beliefs, no matter how crazy, play no role is their crazy behavior.

Also, I suspect that you fit the part of this sentence highlighted in bold.

Those on this spectrum view the people further toward the center as too rigid, dogmatic and hostile to doubt, and they generally view those outside as corrupted by sin, weak-willed or unchurched.

Since you seem to be fairly far to the outside of the spectrum, I doubt that you agree with the latter part, though I can't know for certain.

[struggle4progress]

61. You think I enable rightwing fundamentalists BECAUSE I view them as

" rigid, dogmatic and hostile"?

:rofl:

Oh, dear ...

[laconicsax]

62. Is English not your native language? Because you seem to have lots of comprehension issues.

Let's look at what I posted, shall we?:

Yes, you inadvertently aid them.

Every time you insist and argue that a person's religious beliefs, no matter how crazy, play no role is their crazy behavior.

Also, I suspect that you fit the part of this sentence highlighted in bold. Those on this spectrum view the people further toward the center as too rigid, dogmatic and hostile to doubt, and they generally view those outside as corrupted by sin, weak-willed or unchurched.

Since you seem to be fairly far to the outside of the spectrum, I doubt that you agree with the latter part, though I can't know for certain.

The first part containing the message subject and first sentence explains how you enable right-wing fundamentalists. The second part, suggesting that you view said fundamentalists as "rigid, dogmatic, and hostile" is separate from the first. In traditional correspondence, it may have appeared as a postscript remark.

Since I obviously need to spoon feed you, I'll repeat myself.

You inadvertently (that means on accident) aid fundamentalists every time you insist and argue that a person's religious beliefs, no matter how crazy, play no role is their crazy behavior. This is because by making the focus the source of the crazy behavior, the crazy beliefs are kept out of the spotlight of inquiry.

Another reason (see now, the subject has changed) you embody Harris' analogy is because you view the [fundamentalists] as too rigid, dogmatic and hostile to doubt.

[Deep13]

43. agreed. nt

[kwassa]

55. Sam Harris is out to lunch.

This thesis is such stultifying bullshit, and only reflects his personal bias and little more.

He posits a thesis without a shred of evidence to support it.

His model is wrong. The dogmatists are not in the center, they are on one extreme edge that I would identify as the right, the far right.

His other wildly unsupported idea is that liberal religious folks act as cover for the dogmatists. This is snatched out of the clear blue sky by someone who has no knowledge of what really happens.

The religious liberals fight the fundamentalists as much as the non-religious liberals.

[darkstar3]

59. Speaking of positing a thesis without a shred of evidence:

The religious liberals fight the fundamentalists as much as the non-religious liberals.
So where's your evidence?

[kwassa]

65. I didn't posit a thesis.

I made an observation.

[darkstar3]

66. Sounds like a claim to me.

Call a claim, a hypothesis, or whatever you like, it still needs evidence if you expect anyone to believe it.

[kwassa]

67. I don't expect you to believe anything.

but that is just you.

This is a good article on the religious left.

"The Religious Left
It is fruitful and has multiplied."

By Steven Waldman

http://www.slate.com/id/2139365

Posted Wednesday, April 5, 2006, at 12:41 PM ET

"Lo and behold, there is a religious left. The Catholic Church is helping to lead the fight against immigration restrictions. A week doesn't seem to pass without some group convening a conference on religion and liberalism. Last year, Rev. Jim Wallis' progressive manifesto, God's Politics, became a best seller; now Jimmy Carter's book attacking the religious right is on the list. "

(jump)

"Pious peaceniks: This group is composed of white liberal Protestants, Catholics, Reform Jews, and an occasional Buddhist. Its members are carrying on the spirit of the anti-war movement of the 1960s and 1970s and the nuclear freeze movement of the 1980s. They have mobilized in opposition to the Iraq war and have a strong interest in environmentalism and antagonism toward corporate America. Exemplars are Cindy Sheehan, the National Council of Churches, the Catholic Church, Faithful America, and the Christian peacemakers who camped out in Iraq as human shields. Some of the hostages who were recently rescued in Iraq were also part of this group.

Along with Bible-thumping liberals, the peaceniks joined and helped lead the effort to derail strict immigration reform. Unlike the Bible-thumpers, they tend to align almost down the line with secular liberals. They were, for instance, suspicious of Clinton's New Democrat philosophy, especially its emphasis on welfare reform and crime fighting, which they thought demonized the poor and minorities. And they tend to be pro-choice or silent on abortion."

Here is an example of activism.

"U.S. religious left wades into healthcare fight"

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE57947020090810

There are religious left organizations like the Network of Spiritual Progressives, holding a conference in Washington this week.

read the site and see what they stand for.

http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/

Conference focus.
"Creating "The Caring Society": A Progressive Alternative to Tea Party Extremism and Corporate Domination of American Politics and Culture"

and as I am Episcopalian, I can direct you to the huge liberal vs. conservative fight within our church through some excellent liberal discussion blogs. The liberals have already won, the conservatives don't know it, and it concerns the entire Anglican Communion, not just the US. The subject of the fight is the ordination of gays as bishops within the denomination, and we are the first major mainline denomination to do so, and there is a lot of fallout happening from this principled stand.

These blogs would be Father Jake Stops the World, Thinking Anglican, Preludium, and some others if you have any interest, and I doubt that you do.

[darkstar3]

69. Now show me how that's "as much as the non-religious liberals."

You have established half of your claim, and shown that at least some religious liberals fight the fundamentalists. The other half of your claim requires substantiating.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[eridani]

34. This agnostic is down with the Christian left

Heck, in the 80s, the sanctuary movement was one of the few visible manifestations of the left.

[Silent3]

40. My problem with pleas for unity and togetherness...

...is that I think they typically mean, "Hey! Why can't you atheists just go back in the closet and shut up!?"

I'd like to turn your question around and ask: What aren't the Christian Left and the Atheist/Agnostic Left doing together that you think they should be doing?

Are their specific things you think are failing to happen?

Do you think there's simply less focus or less intensity in the pursuit of common causes?

Do you think there is a significant number among the Christian Left who often shy away from voting for Democrats because they fear the Democrats are too godless for them? Despite the fact that, especially for major public office, nearly all Democratic politicians make sure they advertise their faith and get in a few "God bless America!"s so everyone knows they aren't those awful, and nearly unelectable (completely unelectable for the Presidency), atheists?

[trotsky]

41. I do know that in 2002 and 2004...

right here on DU, non-believers were a frequent scapegoat to "explain" Democratic losses. "If only people didn't think the Democratic party was hostile to faith," was the common wail. Of course, a lot of DUers also blamed those uppity gays for wanting equal rights too, so I was proud to be in good company.

[Deep13]

42. For the most part, those groups are together.

As far as specific issues go, we don't let religious differences distract us. It is only when arguments rest on theological matters, including the insistance on respect for mere belief, that there is disagreement. On the issue of faith vs. rationality, that is the very foundation of their disagreement and there will never be an agreement on that.

[charlie]

45. Scientologists with nukes n/t

[DeSwiss]

46. Look at its history.....

Religion ruins EVERYTHING. Any concession that one makes with irrationality will ultimately lead to more irrationality.

That is its way.....

[Evoman]

57. The same thing that keeps me and my gf together...

hot dirty sex.

[darkstar3]

58. Too bad one side doesn't believe in that. n/t

[AlecBGreen]

72. heh...heh... Allllll riiightttt

[PassingFair]

74. I've worked side by side with the Xtian left on anti-war protests.

Its the only place where "god" never seems to come up.

Maybe its because war is tangible and immediate.

I think Thomas Gumbleton rocks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gumbleton

But then, he's viewed as a crazy person by most local catholics.

I've attended a few of his lectures and seen him doing brave things,
going against the hierarchy when he holds the moral high ground.

If all believers were like him, I'd have a much better opinion of them.