An atheist argues with a religious lefty: "The problem is faith."

[BurtWorm]

Responding to Barabara O'Brien, who, guest-posting for Glenn Greenwald argues that "religion-haters" have "somehow" warped all religion into being about the very worst of the religious, Pharyngula's PZ Myers says the problem lies in the nature of faith itself:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/the_god_worm.php


Faith is a hole in your brain. Faith stops critical thinking. Faith is a failure point inculcated into people's minds, an unguarded weak point that allows all kinds of nasty, maggoty, wretched ideas to crawl into their heads and take up occupancy. Supporting faith is like supporting people who refuse to be vaccinated: they're harmless in and of themselves, they may be perfectly healthy right now, but they represent fertile ground for disease, and they represent potential severe damage to the social compact. When you're in a culture that worships Abraham's insanity, you're fostering the nonsense that enables the Son of Sam.

O'Brien misses the big flaw. She says, "somehow, we've allowed religion to be defined by the stupid and the warped," but there's no "somehow" about it. It's intrinsic to the nature of the beast. When the core of the institution is an acceptance of irrational, the ones who will climb to the top are those most able to exploit the delusions of the masses, or who are most earnest and unhesitating in their endorsement of foolishness. This is what religion does best: build a hierarchy of clowns and tyrants on the wishful thinking of the innocent. Why should we want that to be a model for a democratic political system?

What I see here is a kind of cynicism. One of the reasons George W. Bush made it to the top is by exploiting the religion loophole in people's thinking, and by playing up his supposed god-fearing nature, he won over the least rational people…which, I admit, is a huge and powerful demographic. What the religious Left wants to do is simply replace the worm called "Bush & God" that is eating voter's brains with a new worm called "Democratic Candidate & God," which will have the same diet but might be coaxed into chewing up slightly different parts of the cortex. 'Their disease is scabrous and filthy, but my disease is sweet and lovely and smells like fresh flowers' is not an argument to sway me.

I will not support such a policy, no matter how pretty the maggot might be, or how good it makes its victims feel. I endorse a very strict deworming regimen for government, and I am dismayed to continually see what should be a secular political party playing games with favoring certain brands of delusion.

[Teaser]

1. well, opinions are like assholes

everyones got one...

[BurtWorm]

2. Not all of them stink, though.

;)

[papau]

143. PZ Myers opinion does not "stink" IMHO - it is just uninformed n/t

n/t

[unpossibles]

3. I thought they were more like a box of kittens

when someone has one, they always try to give it away.

[cosmik debris]

4. But discrete people

Don't share theirs in public!

[hunter]

5. Why should religious faith imply a lack of skepticism?

It's the empty unthinking heads the maggots crawl into, and a head might be just as empty without faith as with it.

The progressive activism of many people is based upon their faith. That's just the way it is. It's rather silly and unproductive to malign faith itself as the root of all evil.

I do believe (and that's a kind of faith) that our government should be entirely secular.

[BurtWorm]

19. Myers isn't arguing that faith precludes all skepticism.

He's arguing that faith is a defect in thought in any head, however rational it might otherwise be, that possesses it. A person might be perfectly capable of defending against bullshit and confidence scams in every other way; but if that same person also believes that if the Lord chooses him, he will rise from the dead and be with the Lord (whatever shape the Lord takes) for all eternity, that is just not rational.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

43. He really dismisses

a whole LOT of folks with this analogy. (maggots, etc.)

And I sometimes think the word "rational" is overused.

However, I do agree that the government should be free from all religious influences. But for me, it is a different reason. I do not want my freedom to believe messed with. This is best assured with a total separation of church and state. Because the worm turns (along with the maggots) frequently and I don't want to have to believe whatever is in fashion. I want my own life to dictate my beliefs.

[bluerum]

6. The author is a bit acerbic - but his basic argument that a belief

process does not provide an acceptable basis for leadership and governing is sound.

If your whole basis for decision making is to say I believe in something that can neither be proved nor demonstrated, how do you proceed from there? Not that this makes any sense on its own face, but how do you make decisions based on unknowns?

Simply not being able to prove a negative (god does not exist) does not lessen the meaning of not being able to prove the positive (god does exist). Belief and non-belief both require faith and neither is fit platform for governing.

My preference is to leave god out of government as much as possible. As the author states - believers are a huge and powerful demographic, but so are non-believers. I don't ask believers not to believe. I hope that they would not try to force their beliefs into my life. I have my own hard won and cherished beliefs.

Although I fully endorse and respect the rights of others to hold and advocate for their beliefs, I do not approve of religion or belief by legislation. That that is a futile endeavor has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout history. How can we have a different expectation now?

edit: sp.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. I agree that government should be secular

but I also think that faith and relgion do play a part in deciding how we act as a nation. Would you denegrate what Martin Luther King and the other ministers in the Civil Rights movement did because they were people of faith? The person quoted in the OP obviously thinks they are mentally deficient.

[BurtWorm]

14. No, he probably doesn't think King and other civil rights leaders

are mentally deficient. In fact he clearly states that perfectly sane people can be religious in a perfectly progressive way. But because faith is inherently and unavoidably irrational--it's all about belief in what can't be demonstrated--it is susceptible to a political model in which its leaders urge the faithful to believe the preposterous, which Myers says is not the right model for democracy or for the Democratic Party.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

22. Faith and religion are emotional

I would contend, and are sustained by intution and feelings rather than rationality-the heart as opposed to the head, as it were. I have no problem with religion staying out of government-in fact, I prefer it that way. But I feel that the arguments made, and especially the language used, will only inflame. And here's why. The fellow is not taking into account his entire audience. Those who think solely with their heads will, in all liklihood, have no problem with the argument. Those who think with heart will.

[BurtWorm]

39. His reaction is owing to a history of argument between leftists of faith

and atheists on the left. I'm sure you don't need to have that history re-rehearsed for you. But I think a lot of the anger you find coming from atheists in this debate has to do with constantly being told to just shut up because our criticism of religion is upsetting to the neighbors. There's a lot of talk among Democrats lately about how the religious left has to reassert some control over how religion is talked about in the country, that just relegating right-wing religiosity to the extremes where it supposedly belongs may bring Christians (mostly) disillusioned with the Republican Party back to the fold (assuming these "Democrats" who have been lost to us since the Reagan era ever really were Democrats in the first place). But maybe the problem isn't how religion is talked about. Maybe religion and politics really don't and shouldn't mix in a democracy.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

51. Bingo!

And this is what we ALL can agree on.

"Maybe religion and politics really don't and shouldn't mix in a democracy. "

[TallahasseeGrannie]

45. Very well put

I found his language offensive, as I stated in the weekend post.

It really is just another "anybody who believes in what I don't believe in is an idiot" meme.

He needs to read some DU R/T threads and learn a bit of tact. His analogies of maggots, etc., were obviously written in anger. I put forth that his writing is too affected by his emotions. It is not "rational" to jump over the top so thoroughly. In some ways, his anger is kind of a left-handed proof of his point!

[bluerum]

20. No denigration intended. MLK was a historic figure but I personally

believe that he used demagoguery to his advantage at times. Not meant as negative criticism but I think that his civil rights focus was founded on humanistic christian foundations. Treat men/human beings as men/human beings, and let them choose their religion as they see fit.

He was a charismatic and powerful figure. The democratic party could use his fierceness these days.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

44. I am not clear

whether he is saying that people of faith are unworthy and incapable of governing, or whether they can govern effectively if they keep their faith out of it.

[GirlinContempt]

7. You know, I was

going to write out a big long reply to this idea, but then I remembered that I don't talk to people who insult my friends.

Good luck with whatever it is you're trying to do there, 'PZ Myers'.

[trotsky]

8. Nice response to a tired old technique.

"Oh those religion-bashers and secularists, they're so dogmatic in their ways, just like the fundamentalists, who by the way are totally NOT representative of religion and I do not pick and choose what I want to believe, I believe the TRUTH, yada yada yada."

Like I said, a nice response to this. Best line: When the core of the institution is an acceptance of irrational, the ones who will climb to the top are those most able to exploit the delusions of the masses, or who are most earnest and unhesitating in their endorsement of foolishness.

[hunter]

46. People who take pride in their "rationality" are as easily mislead.

In my own experience medical doctors who consider themselves highly rational are easily mislead by fraudulent pharmaceutical industry research and advertising.

Skeptic James Rani often notes that scientist are more easily fooled by charlatans than professional magicians are.

People who deny the emotional component of their decision making process often get into more trouble than people who recognize it.

[trotsky]

55. I'll take the rationalists' track record any day.

And I'll politely ignore your overgeneralization.

[hunter]

56. The "track record" of religious Progressives is pretty impressive.

But I will concede the track records of rationalists is under-represented because they are often discriminated against.

[CarbonDate]

154. That's because professional magicians....

...are charlatans themselves. "Don't try to bullshit a bullshitter", and all that. Scientists are not. That point seems so patently obvious to me as to almost go without saying.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. this was posted over the weekend

Like I said then, I find the argument divisive and in no way helping progressive causes. This is exactly the sort of thing freepers look for to "prove" that all Democrats are "godless". Since many here (including me) are progressives fighting against fundatmentalists of our own faith, to find atheists posting things like this is basically tatamount to stabbing us in the back.

[trotsky]

11. You wanna talk about back-stabbing, eh?

Trust me on this: atheists have been feeling that knife in their backs for a long, long time.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. Examples, please

Please give me examples where I have backstabbed you or in any way done anything that would hurt getting Democrats elected to office. The OP is raw meat for the Ann Coulters of the world. Of course, if it is more important to atheists that they say that believers are mentally off than winning elections, please state so publicly so that we progressive believers know where your priorities lie.

[Goblinmonger]

16. Two things

1. I don't remember trotsky saying YOU backstabbed anyone. Just that atheists know how it feels.

2. FUCK THE ANN COULTERS OF THE WORLD. Democrats could sit on their asses and do nothing (which I would argue is par for the course the last months) and Ann Coulter, O'Fuckhead, and the rest of them would still be assholes that bitch about democrats. Why the hell should I, or any other democrat, decide what we are going to do based on what we think the reaction of douchebags will be (and we KNOW their reactions will ALWAYS be to piss on Democrats).

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

24. but why give them ammunitiion?

That's my point.

[Goblinmonger]

26. Why not just do what's right?

That's my point.

That, and the fact that people like Coulter will always find something to bitch about. It is in their vile nature. Screw em' and do what's right.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

30. Do you think insulting people

and saying that because they have religious faith is somehow showing mental defects is right? If you say yes, you have told me where your priorities lie. They are to show that your way of looking at the world is superior to other views, and is the only one people should have. If that is the case, fine. But don't also say you wish to make sure the Democratic Party is all inclusive.

[kwassa]

35. She has a very good point

[Goblinmonger]

36. Looks like you learned your lesson

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=54896#54953

[Goblinmonger]

38. That is a more complex answer than you think.

1. I DON'T WANT the Democratic Party to be "all inclusive." That is silly. That would mean republicans would be here, too and that would be bad.
2. Do I think it is wise to say that in a politcal forum like congress a good thing? No. But this is one blogger in a sea of many who is saying something a little over the edge to get people to look. You act like this is Obama saying this on the senate floor.
3. You may not like it that some people think that way about religion, but if you are going to talk about inclusion, then their viewpoint is somehow excluded? Are you saying that there isn't a group of people who, because of their "ability" to blindly follow a religion, are susceptible to being led to shitty thing? Cause we all know that's true. That's what is being talked about here.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

47. I'm talking about politeness

And respect. I can even show that to Republicans, if they show me respect as well. This harks back, in my mind, to several threads in R/T that were basically asking what is respect in regards to relgion or atheism. As I recall, no final decision was made-atheists still felt that it wasn't insulting to call people of faith credulous children, and believers felt that that went over the line to being insulting.

And no, I don't think what is being talked about here is the susceptibility of people to be led in a direction that is not to theirs, or society's, benefit. What was talked about in the OP was more of the same old same old as described in my first paragraph.

Oh, and by "all inclusive" I meant that the Democratic Party was open to all people with liberal ideas-you don't have to follow a religion, be heterosexual, etc, etc, to belong. To insult people who are trying to be on your side (including agreeing with you about seperation of church and state) is counterproductive. It reminds me of some of the things that went on in the Civil Rights movement on a local level. My mother was a member of The Urban League, and supported integration and equal pay, etc. There was a certain group of African Americans in the city where we lived who said that no blacks should work with any whites, because they were all bigots and racists--but then they were also ones who thought violence was the way to get what they wanted, and to heck what the majority in the city thought. Needless to say, calmer people prevailed-the African Americans who were in the Urban League realized that it would take as many people as they could muster to get what they needed. They treated all who attended the meetings with respect, regardless of color, for they knew the goals were the same. Now think what might have happened if the more radical "you've got to be just like me" crowd had taken over the Civil Rights Movement in this country. Do you really think the Democratic Party will be able to win elections if only atheists are allowed in it? Or can we rise above our differences and work together to win?

[Goblinmonger]

74. Do you really see atheists as that big of a threat?

By your post you act like we are the ones in power. My impression is that we are shit-upon minority even in the democratic party. There are studies to back up that assessment of society as a whole. We have no power. Does it surprise you that we get pissed off once in a while?

And secondly, do you think there is absolutely no place for acerbic wit? Every argument that is ever made needs to be delivered in flowers and unicorn hair? Isn't there a time to just be pissed off and say somethings that will get people's attention? I suppose you don't think satire has any place in society either. Was Colbert over the line in his speech to the press? That was pretty rude. That gave the republican fuck heads a lot to talk about. Should he not have done that?

[charlie]

27. I think the pundits and policy makers

on the left who squawk about "correcting" a Republican-defined "problem" of the left are bigger arms merchants, IMHO.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

53. Fuck the Ann Coulters of the world?

ARGGGGGHGGHGHGHGHHG

Stop! Stop! I'm feeling dizzy.

[Goblinmonger]

75. Well, Granny

it is one of my guilty admissions that there are times when I do find Ann Coulter sexy. I usually take a scalding shower after thinking that, but I do think it.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

76. She is actually rather attractive

and I'll bet you think she needs to be spanked, don't you??

Oh well, I thought Dan Quayle was So pretty.

[Goblinmonger]

77. You nailed that one on the head.

And before this degenerates any more, off to grade more sophomore essays.

[trotsky]

17. I never accused you personally of backstabbing me,

so it's not quite fair to turn that charge around. You commented on the words/actions of another, and I simply wanted to point out that it's nothing new to the atheists in this country. When all the Democrats in the Senate got up to chant "Under God," I just have to chuckle when a liberal believer complains about backstabbing. You're worried about obscure bloggers and anonymous notes on a message board. I get to see all the members of my party in the most powerful legislative body in the world take that knife and jam it right in.

But, since you asked, I could offer up that by you being a Muslim, you are costing us votes. I don't personally believe this, but it's essentially the same argument when the "religion hater" is bashed.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

29. I haven't seen anyone here who has been offended because I am a Muslim

Nor have I given offense to anyone who isn't a Muslim. I have Muslim brothers and sisters here in the US who have been threatened by "Christians"-mosques have been vandalized and a fake bomb left at one brother's place of business. Just because of that you won't see me bashing Christians, especially progressive Christians who post here. The Democratic Party says it shows tolerance and respect for everyone. The OP doesn't.

[trotsky]

31. Did you read my example?

The Democratic Party says it shows tolerance and respect for everyone.

Every damn Democratic Senator on the Capitol steps proclaiming this to be "One Nation UNDER GOD" doesn't quite show tolerance and respect for everyone, now does it?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

33. Are you saying the Democratic Party consists solely of Senators?

I don't think so.

[trotsky]

37. Of course not, but how does that address what I asked?

You seem to be saying that it's just horrible when someone not even affiliated with the Democratic Party says something less-than-flattering about religion on their personal blog or on an anonymous message board, that indeed that sort of thing is COSTING US VOTES. Yet when actual Democratic officeholders are shown to completely disrespect not only the religious rights of atheists but the principle of the separation of church and state, your defense is that there are other Democrats in the party too?

I'm really trying to see how that makes just a tiny bit of sense. Help me out.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

50. Ok, let's try this again

First of all, since this was posted here at DU by someone who, through their messages, appears to agree with the OP, I'd say there are Democrats here who agree with what it says. The fact that this is the second time in about three days that this same article has popped up here seems to indicate that there are more than one poster here who agrees with the opinions expressed in the OP. I say "affiliated with the Democratic party" in that to post on this board and abide by the rules, you have to be liberal/progressive and be doing things that will help people in the Democratic Party win.

I say that it was only the Senators who said this for a couple of reasons: 1. They don't represent all Democrats-and one reason for DU is to figure out how to make them more representative of the grass roots. I mean, isn't one reason there's threads about Ned Lamont here because the grassroot DU activists by and large think Lieberman has to go?
2. There's a reason they did this, and it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics. If it weren't for the rise of the Talibornagains, do you think anyone would have even made this an issue? So how do we counteract the effects of the religious right? Do you think that posting things like the OP and agreeing with them are going to stop Robertson and his ilk?

One last thing, and that's about anonymous posters. We're not as anonymous as we think. Ever google your user name? I do it periodically. I have found where freepers have taken my posts from here and have put them on their own sites-this was used to ridicule my position on Islam. That's when I became aware of the larger audience for posts here-and decided it might be wise, especially when giving people information about Islam, to quote and cite sources, and to be aware that my words are being read by a larger audience. I have found since I have been more precise and careful with my posts on Islam, the freepers aren't borrowing my posts any more to make a point.

[trotsky]

54. Unfortunately, this is just one of those huge disconnects.

Far too many religious liberals (who currently DO run the party, you know) have viewed us freethinkers as the bastard red-headed stepchildren. Sit down, shut up, respect religion, and most of all - NEVER, EVER give the right wing ANY reason to think that not all of us think religion is all sunshine and rainbows. Where is the respect for what atheists think? When do we get a voice? Plenty of Democrats argue about tons of issues, yet so many believers on here target the atheist-theist disagreements as the WORST thing, the thing that's just costing us so many votes with the mythical middle.

Well fuck that. I don't give a rat's ass about what a demented freeper does with my posts, because those people are so full of hate they're going to find an outlet no matter what. They'll make shit up if they have to.

Now about your points:

1) So senators aren't representative? No shit. "one reason for DU is to figure out how to make them more representative of the grass roots" - HELLO!!! Atheists are part of the grass roots, too! Those of us who have a unique perspective on religion, and can see just how easily it is used for ANY agenda, with EQUAL justification. Saying "Oh, but my religion is peaceful and loving and the reich wing has corrupted it" solves NOTHING. It addresses NOTHING. It gets us NOWHERE. Oh wait, silly me, it's because we didn't absorb ENOUGH of the Republican agenda to win, that's it. We need to be MORE religious, MORE conservative! Next time it'll be SURE to work! Yeah!

2) "it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics" - Exactly what I and many other atheists have been saying. Religion has been empowered to BE politics now. And when one person comes in with the view of "My beliefs say this, and YOU have to respect that, and do what I say!" exactly what is the response we can give? As you and other believers make known, you want us to respect religion. No criticism. Nothing but tepid "Everything could be true, I just don't know" crap is all we can say. Double fuck that.

There are plenty of people "affiliated with this site" who seem to get genuine enjoyment and delight at insulting and defining atheists for their own political purposes. Yet I see no liberal believers flocking to our defense. No one standing up to the religious bigots. Just like in real life! Go figure! Oh those embarrassing atheist religion-haters. If they would just shut up and go away and oh by the way yes, continue voting for us too, then everything will work out fine.

[bloom]

59. It is not reasonable to suggest

as you (and many others do) that people are "backstabbing" you here - when you are really talking about your perception of the world.

I think that many do that as as a way to be the victim and as an excuse to be obnoxious to DU posters who are really quite civil and nice.


ayeshahaqqiqa was talking about posters HERE who backstab people HERE (and sorry - but more often than not those posters are atheists with some kind of complex) - not people out in the world that are out of this discussion.


A lot of people (like of the "evil atheist posse") are beating others over the head who are sympathetic to you. It doesn't make sense. It seems that what you really want to do is post at yahoo or somewhere - where people really would attack you - people who hate atheists. I just find the atheists annoying who think it's reasonable to be obnoxious. Who want to fight the world - but fight liberal people instead. :shrug:

[trotsky]

60. Perception is reality.

I see plenty of willingness to throw the atheists and other non-believers under the bus. Dismissal of state/church issues, demands that the non-religious shut up, you name it. If that's being sympathetic, thanks a lot. It would be great if maybe, just once, all these sympathetic believers would jump in when one of their jackass brethren starts defining and labeling atheists. Until that happens, don't try to lecture anyone, mmmkay?

[bloom]

61. Around here

I see a lot more atheists who sabotage and backstab religious people than I do the reverse. And that's seeing the situation as an atheist.

If I were a Christian - I probably wouldn't bother trying to converse here at all.


It's pretty obvious who the peacemakers are and who are not.

[trotsky]

62. You see one thing, I see another.

Who could forget the infamous thread where the person who ran over Cindy Sheehan's crosses was declared "obviously" to not be a Christian? No sabotage or backstabbing there. Or all the various church-state separation issues that are blithely dismissed as unimportant. Oh yeah, you're completely right. Despite the concept of backstabbing being typically associated with a group that HAS power, and atheists having NO power, yeah, I'm sure it fits perfectly. :eyes:

[bloom]

81. Around here

I think it's a certain group (not all) of atheists who throw their weight around to try to control the conversation more than religious people.

You might think that you are the underdog - but that's what I'm saying - I think you are using your underdog status in the real world to justify backstabbing here.

There are a lot of atheists who like the perception of victimhood - and try to capitalize on it - to the point of driving away people who think differently.


It's one thing to be outraged about real things - like church/state issues - that's not what I'm talking about.

[trotsky]

82. Oh yes, play the "victimhood" card.

That's a good one. Helps to dismiss someone's concerns if you can portray them as whiners who really don't have it that bad. You know, these atheists of which you speak also think differently. But you don't seem to be concerned about driving them away, now do you? Is it because they're such a small group, you feel their views can be written off?

I try to keep my critical comments about religion confined to this forum - because, as apparently lots of people need to be reminded - that's what it was created for. Yet apparently that's still not good enough. Believers (and enablers) now want THIS to be a safe zone, in addition to their safe zone groups.

Again I ask, how can a few personal blogs or some messages on DU be considered "backstabbing"? Take a look at not only this country but this party and please tell me honestly just whose concerns are being put aside for the sake of "winning" (even though that strategy still has yet to produce a "win")?

[bloom]

84. What I think

I think it's reasonable to be respectful of people who are liberally religious as well as those who are non-religious.

I think it's reasonable that this be a "safe zone" for liberals (but not for fundamentalists) - IOW - a place where liberal people should be able to discuss things without "backstabbing" - as you brought up.

Take this thread as an example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=74211&mesg_id=74211


If people didn't want to discuss it - then just ignore it - but to have 125+ posts that are getting on the poster's case - I don't get it. I didn't think he was implying that that was the ONLY important thing to discuss - but one way of discussing an important moral issue and he was totally sandbagged. I think it's a way of backstabbing. And I don't think he was asking for it, either.


Maybe I should have a thinner skin (?) and get more upset if anyone suggests that religion has any moral value whatsoever. But I don't think so. And I don't think that is a superior way to behave - to get upset about things that were not meant as an insult - and to pretend that I am a victim when I am not.

I have insulted Christians - just as I have insulted some atheists (who didn't like what I had to say) - and I don't have Christians backstabbing me. (Maybe you think that I didn't "really" insult them - but I think that I insulted Christians and atheists fairly equally.)

I think there are some atheists who are just out for revenge and they will take it out on whomever is convenient. And I don't think it helps their cause.

Sure the country as a whole does not treat atheists well - but is that really an excuse to act like jerks when you manage to have the upper hand? I don't think so. It's not behavior that is going to attract anyone or gain sympathy for your cause.

[trotsky]

123. But what it always comes back to is....

what does it mean to be "respectful" of a person versus their beliefs? Seems like there's a whole lot of people who think that to respect someone's beliefs means you can't utter a single negative word about them. Are there some atheists who cross the line? Sure. I try to avoid those threads when possible. There are enough believers who cross that line too. But there is nothing said in here about religious beliefs that isn't essentially said elsewhere on DU about PETA, circumcision, or whatever other topic is being discussed. It's just that believers want this subject to be special - religious beliefs treated differently.

Sorry, ain't gonna happen. That's what Groups are for. In here, it seems like theists and atheists can get equally snarky, and I view it as a good thing. Let it get rough & tumble. Let it all hang out. The mods and admins are here to clean up if things get out of hand.

Oh and re: s4p's thread, I think varkam pretty much said it all in post #79.

[bloom]

132. post #79

certainly summed up the rudeness and condescension.

It didn't say anything relevant to the topic. That's just what I'm talking about. And how many are convinced of their own and their buddies cleverness.

Such behavior creates rifts and solidifies factions. Does nothing for peace, understanding or even advancing one's own ideas in the world.

Such posts (like most of the 130+ posts on that thread) might advance rudeness and obnoxiousness between groups. I don't know if that is what people are after - but that is what they are likely getting.


More people ought to think about Karma. Some ideas have been around awhile for a reason.

[trotsky]

133. So we should just let hypocrisy slide, then?

Someone bemoans the lack of substantive discussions in here, and someone else posts proof that they haven't exactly been a major contributor themselves. More of a little jab than an example of "rudeness and condescension," I'd say. And since the OP responded to #79 in a way suggesting they took it lightly, I think you should too, instead of seeming to look for reasons to attack the atheists you don't like.

On election day, EVERYONE in this forum (excluding maybe a couple of trolls) is going to go into the booth and pull the lever for the Democratic candidate. All the namecalling and bickering and "rudeness and condescension" won't change that, and if it did, then I don't think that person was very firm in their liberal views to start with.

[bloom]

134. "since the OP responded..."

Well - I suppose at that point the OP realized that nobody was going to discuss any of the ideas in his OP. That doesn't make it less rude.

[trotsky]

135. No, that's not the point.

Their response clearly took it as a friendly jab, not this horrible rude thing you are making it out to be.

[bloom]

137. You don't know

Just because someone laughs something off doesn't mean that they wouldn't see it as rude - they might just be the kind of person that deals with rudeness that way.

To me - it wasn't just the one post - it was nearly the whole thread. And there have been other threads along the same lines. Just because nobody said that the gang was rude does not mean that nobody thought it.

[trotsky]

138. You choose to read rudeness into it.

Fine. I'm not going to argue with what your opinion is. You also choose to see people as being in "gangs." So it's pretty clear how you're going to approach most threads in here.

[bloom]

139. I only choose

to see people in a gang because a representative of the gang has told me that I should.

While maybe the gang has more or less stopped harassing me - that doesn't mean the gang does not harass people.

It's not like I'm just making it up - or that the gang determines how I approach threads. Though I may argue against the actions of the gang. I think that is only reasonable.

[trotsky]

140. Oh give it up with the "gang."

What makes you think this one person speaks for anyone but themselves? Maybe they have issues and WANT to be part of something. Continuing to think of people as being in a "gang" is - I guarantee you - going to cause a lot more of this rudeness and discord you supposedly don't like.

So think about it: do you REALLY want to promote peace and tolerance, or are you stirring the pot too?

[Zhade]

142. "It's not like I'm just making it up"

Why not? You've done it before.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

150. Hey

What am I, chopped liver????

[jonnyblitz]

18. you will lead a much happier life once you stop worrying about

what freepers think because even if you do profess your christianity as a liberal they won't think you are a real or true christian anyways. you also say "godless" like it is a bad thing. hmmmmmm....

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

32. I'm not going to change your mind

nor will you change mine. I don't think godlessness is a bad thing, but I think rudeness and being insulting to people who are on your side is a stupid thing to do. And imho, the OP does just that.

[jonnyblitz]

41. stop worrying about what freepers think.

they are never going to like you if you are liberal whether you are a christian or an atheist.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

52. I don't care what they think as much as

I care if they decide to take these posts and put them up on a website to "prove" that Democrats think believers are mentally deficient, or something like that. Have you ever googled your user name? Check it out sometime. You may find that it pays to write words carefully here so that they cannot be taken to mean that which you do not intend them to mean.

[varkam]

12. Here's a nice passage...

Pointing out that some people manage to overcome the handicap of superstitious thinking to live admirable lives doesn't change the fact that it is superstition; nor does it excuse the fact that religiosity has become a de facto requirement for political advancement in this country.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. If this is so,

how does calling religion and belief a superstition win people over to your cause? I think it is sad that belief or lack of it should be a factor in elective office, but I am suspicious of atheists who wear their thought processes on their sleeves as much as I am religists who wear their belief systems on their sleeves. I wonder how much I can trust either to be objective about things that matter.

[varkam]

58. A response

If this is so, how does calling religion and belief a superstition win people over to your cause?

It probably doesn't. In fact it probably alienates those who subscribe to such beliefs. But, I figure this was a rhetorical question.

I think it is sad that belief or lack of it should be a factor in elective office

As do I.

but I am suspicious of atheists who wear their thought processes on their sleeves as much as I am religists who wear their belief systems on their sleeves. I wonder how much I can trust either to be objective about things that matter.

In the end, we all wear our thought processes on our sleeves - though certainly some do it with less forcefulness than this author. When talking about God or Allah or your HP, objectivity is hard-if not impossible-to come by. This is because of the striking lack of evidence for the existence of any sort of God. So, without evidence, all we are left with is discourse, argument and opinion. Not much objectivity to be had there.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

48. But Varkam..

here is where I part ways with him. His insistence that it is superstition is the problem. We all know that nobody knows for sure. This is an old, old theme we go through here. What to him is "the handicap of superstitious thinking" is to some a life of joy and fulfillment. Maybe we are wrong; maybe he is. But sensible people don't go around assuming they have all the answers. Actually, that level of surety is a symptom of a number of mental illnesses. I readily admit I might be full of it. Every atheist on DU I have ever discussed this with also admits the same thing. Because we just don't know. I have reasons for believing, they have reasons for not. We all believe we have made the right decision based on evidence or lack of it in our lives. But when he dismisses everyone not in agreement with him, he comes across as having delusions of adequacy. On the other side of this coin is "Jesus is the only way to salvation!"

His last sentence about religiosity becoming a defacto requirement for political advancement is on target and that is where he should focus his argument. He weakens it with his anger and rhetoric.

[varkam]

57. The last sentence was why I liked it the most...

Though, of course, as a member of the "evil atheist posse", I liked the other stuff too. :)

I completely agree with you on the certainty issue. If I've said it before, I've said it a thousand times: People who claim to know whether or not God exists either a)haven't thought very seriously what knowing something actually means or b)have a nasty methamphetamine habit.

The point here may be to single out religion as superstitious thinking, but I don't think it is called out as such in virtue of simply being religious or by believing in God. I think the word (superstition) has a very perjorative connotation. Perhaps this was what the author intended. But nonetheless, I take it that superstitious beliefs or thinking are those that are held in the face of a lack of evidence. Unless I am mistaken in the meaning of superstition, then I take it religion falls in this category as there simply is no evidence of God's existence (otherwise there would be no "evil atheist posse", as there would be no atheists).

Now be that as it may, I have no doubt in my mind that such beliefs can create great joy, fulfillment, and a call to do good deeds in one's own life. I know as I have experienced such phenomena myself when I used to be a Baptist - joy, inspiration, comfort, a call to do God's will. But, unfortunately, such phenomena speak nothing to the truth of the claims that inspire them but only to the willingness of those who subscribe to them to hold them near and dear.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

21. I'm a bit confused where

your comment starts above. Could you tell me where the quote ends? I apologize if I'm missing it.

[charlie]

23. Everything after the link

is PZ Myers.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

28. Thanks nt

[Stevepol]

25. Political decisions should be *based on* reason; the spirit with which

you reason and act should or can be based on *faith*. You can use your reason and leave God out. That's fine, but unless you act with optimism and faith (in the future, in the young, in the process as leading toward something better, in the *ideal* you see as the best you know), you're not going to have much success.

I think faith and reason go hand in hand.

Faith is not a good foundation for making decisions that are totally or almost totally secular. You have to use facts and data and reason.

But negative facts and data and reason like what we have now as a result of a (mis)leader falsely professing to be religious can be pretty depressing and that depressed attitude will just lead to more negative facts.

Faith I believe helps you see beyond the dung heap toward what can be in the future, if we use reason (which is a God-given trait and gift) to achieve it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

34. well said!

Thanks!

[Orrex]

40. In what, then, are you placing your faith?

"Faith" that things will get better in the future is not readily distinguishable from wishful thinking, no matter how deeply one's faith may be held in this regard. And what if that "faith" is shown to be unfounded, for example by an increasingly bleak likely future?

In just about every conversation I've ever had with a Christian on the subject, transcendent faith (as in faith in God) is all but synonymous with certainty. If one maintains that same certain faith that "things will get better" in defiance of any available evidence, then one is merely harboring a delusion increasingly out of touch with reality. But if one accepts that faith in a better future may be incorrect, then that's not the same kind of faith at all.

As always, I distinguish between mundane faith (e.g., faith that the Coke can contains Coke) and transcendent faith (e.g., an omnipotent, eternal, omnibenevolent entity exists but can't in any way be shown to exist). The former accepts disproof when such is demonstrated, while the latter refuses any disproof whatsoever.

Reason must trump metaphysical faith in all cases where the two are at odds.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

49. Faith that things will get better

is not about faith in God. Faith in God brings you "I can deal with it when it doesn't get better because I have faith in God that all things work for the good."

I think the faith that things will get better is just human optimism, which is probably a trait we evolved to keep us going during the rough times, to keep striving.

Sadly, I have learned that as we get older, it doesn't get better. It gets harder. But the world outside us just keeps doing the same old roller coaster of human behavior. The one thing that keeps ME sane as I watch things disintegrate around me is the cycle of life...my grandchildren...the seeds I planted on Sunday that will be cukes and squash...the rebuilding going on down at the gulf coast.

[BurtWorm]

42. The Bushists claim to be basing their decisions on faith.

They claim that they have faith God will protect us from Global Warming, if it's God's will. They claim it's up to God to determine whether an instance of sex leads to a young woman's pregnancy, in which case, it's up to God, not the pharmacy, to determine if the pregnancy continues. And these people believe they're the optimists, because the future they're sure of is one in which everyone is dead and either in Heaven or Hell for all eternity ever after according to God's perfect justice.

[Crunchy Frog]

63. Some of my own thoughts on this.

For the most part, I like PZ Myers and enjoy reading his blog. That being said, I think he's completely out to lunch here.

My position is that faith is merely one of many holes in our brains. We're simply more aware of it than we are of the other ones because it plays such a prominent role in our social order. I have always been of the opinion that human beings are not fundamentally rational beings. I tend to think that we are much better off acknowledging, accepting, and accomodating to that reality than we are in denying it or engaging in quixotic attempts to abolish it.

I've seen many examples of irrationality among non-theists. I come from a family in which several members; non-religious, non-theist, and all of them with PhDs, nevertheless behaved with profound irrationality in other areas of their lives. I certainly cannot say that my experiences support the notion that non-theists are inherently more rational than theists. The sources of human irrationality are so diverse that to separate out one of them for special condemnation is...irrational.

I don't buy the notion that it's even possible for a human being to be governed completely by rationality. I at least have never met a Mr. Spock or Mr. Data, and I probably wouldn't care too much for them if I did either.

One final thought, that essay in Raw Story that got people so stirred up was extraordinarily mild in comparison with this piece. Are there any people posting to this thread who got upset at the Raw Story piece but are okay with this? If there are, can you at least see where some people might detect a small amount of hypocrisy?

[beam me up scottie]

65. The raw story author wanted atheists purged from the Democratic party

You consider that to be "extraordinarily mild"?

I must have missed where PZ Meyers did the same to religious people.

Perhaps you could point that out to me.

[Crunchy Frog]

66. I find no such statement in the Raw Story article.

First of all, there is no reference to a "purge". She speaks of "cleaning the atheist whackjobs out of our own attic", but there is no indication that she intends that to mean banning atheists from the Democratic party. That is something that some people appear to have read into it.

Secondly, she makes it very clear that she is not referring to all, or even most, atheists.

Although all secular (by this definition) extremists are atheists, not all atheists are atheist extremists

The whackjob is a special sort of atheist, one so absolutely certain of the inerrancy of atheism and so virulently opposed to religion that he will latch on to any and all outrageous claims in defense of the former and against the latter. He will meet any criticism of atheism or positive representation of religion as a horrible attack on his way of life or as support for religious extremism and oppression.

That she chooses to refer to a subset of atheists "atheist whackjobs" may indicate a lack of tact, but it is many orders of magnitude more benign than "Faith is a hole in your brain." or describing religious beliefs as "maggots".

Ultimately, she appears to simply be suggesting that all forms of extremism including those of the atheist stripe threaten the ideals of freedom and liberty which are at the core of what our party and liberalism are supposed to stand for. The more I read things like this piece by PZ Myers or the writings of Sam Harris, the more inclined I am to see the logic in her position.

Now please, feel free to attack my avatar in retaliation for my grievious insult against atheists.

[beam me up scottie]

67. Oh, please, lay off the hyperbole.

Egad, it's like being in the women's room at a high school dance.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about, for starters.

The raw story article was revised and edited many times since the original, which was the one atheists took offense at.

And not just atheists, by the way, many theists were as upset about it as we were, since it bordered on hate speech.

So, if you don't mind, I'll just skip your cliff notes version of what you think was extraordinarily mild.

If you ever do wish to get a clue, let me know, or ask any of the atheists here who saved the original, unedited version of Miss Barton's bigoted diatribe.


And when did I ever attack your stupid avatar or anything else about you? :eyes:

[Crunchy Frog]

70. Could you provide me with a link to the original version?

I would very much like to read it.

As for the ostensible hyperbole, I just don't see it in this post, and I freely acknowledge that I do engage in it on occasion. Are you sure that you're not doing a little bit of projecting?

If the article was indeed hate speech, then I'm very pleased that the theists here were upset about it. I've noticed that in general they seem more inclined to defend atheists than the other way around.

Okay, technically you didn't attack me for my avatar. Just defended someone else attacking me for my avatar and implied that I deserved it. Since you were defending the principle of attacking the avatars/preferred candidates of people with whom one has a disagreement on this board, I figured you'd want to get in on the act. In any event, my offer still stands, please feel free to do it if it will make you feel better.

I have nothing against atheists or atheism by the way. My own world view is far closer to the atheist one than it is to the religious ones. I just dislike the phenomenon of people attacking and belittling other people's beliefs, and frankly, on this particular board I see far more of that kind of behavior from the atheists than from the theists.

Please do provide a link to the original article though. I genuinely wish to evaluate it with an open mind, and on its own merits.

[GirlinContempt]

78. That is from the ORIGINAL raw story article.

[beam me up scottie]

83. Uh, right. And Rove was indicted on May 12th, too.

Don't forget to tell them you heard it here first!

:rofl:

[Random_Australian]

68. 1) That is a revised version 2) Fundamental difference between

"cleaning out" atheists and "purging" = squat.

Look, here is some simple logic:
1) There are sane atheists, not a low percentage (as per the general population)

2) Every atheist who read the damn thing got angered. (bar outliers as per stats)

Therefore the article had somehing offensive in it,
Therefore the "That is something that some people appear to have read into it." argument doesn't work.

Kindly consider these things before posting stuff like that. "read into it" - I should like to hear you explain how that contributed to the conversation.

[beam me up scottie]

69. Exactly.

Thousands of atheists had a snit over nothing, I guess.

Gee, I wonder why raw story felt it necessary to alter the article, more than once and then claim the atheists were overreacting?

[Crunchy Frog]

71. I hadn't realized the article had been revised.

If you have a link to the original I would very much like to read it. I made the best assessment of the article that I could, not realizing that it had been revised from the original, but am fully prepared to revise my interpretation in light of new evidence.

[Random_Australian]

72. Nope, sorry. I don't think anyone does - I certainly did not expect

revision. Not that I even have a link to the new article. But I think a sign of exactly how bad was that myself and many other athiests now refuse to patronise RawStory, for defending the article. When Bmus said "Purge the atheists" she meant it. That is basically what it was.

That said, I recognise that you can't really assess it without the article in question, but no, I do not have link.

[GirlinContempt]

80. I still ask you don't speak for me

I didn't get angry over it.

[Random_Australian]

117. WHO SAID I SPOKE FOR YOU? HUH? I specifically said "bar outliers,

as per stats" I can hardly believe that someone who chastises for reading comprehension would say this.

Add something to the discussion - anytime you want. When you make up stuff about what people are saying, this, I feel, is not something that contributes to the discussion.

[GirlinContempt]

79. I agree with you.

[NMMNG]

64. His views on faith are rather inflammatory

But he makes a very important point about the upcoming election. The Democrats do make a huge effort to pander to the religionists by playing up the "Godliness" of their candidates. And sadly it is necessary. Ever since Bush went in with his holy-roller God Bless America routine this nation has been seized by a frenzy of hypereligiosity. If a candidate is not willing to wear his/her love of the Lord like a shining beacon everywhere s/he is not considered fit to make it past the primaries. To be dubbed "godless" is the kiss of death for any candidate. There is no more separation of Church and State where Presidential elections are concerned.

Church and State need to be firmly separated. A candidate's religious affiliations and beliefs should never be questioned or be part of their campaign platform. This "faith-based" government nonsense needs to stop, and fast, before it's too late.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

73. Amen and Amen

because if it is not stopped you freedom not to believe and my freedom TO believe are in jeopardy.

[kaffiria]

85. I wrote this whole looooong thing on my blog

I wrote this whole long thing about some of the left's absolute intolerance for religion.

check it out!

I dont expect this to be a popular opinion around here, but who knows. Food for thought.

http://rationallia.typepad.com/voiceofreason/

[beam me up scottie]

86. Food for thought?

Sorry, I can't choke this down, no matter what you call it:

The last six years demonstrated the absolute height of power that conservative Christians could achieve in this country and frankly, a reasonable person could see that their effect on domestic social policy was not unbearable.

Do you honestly think they're DONE with us?

And exactly whose standard of "unbearable" are you using?

It’s a bit curious that it’s the Christian fundamentalists and right wingers that feel no qualms with completely denouncing Islamic fundamentalists, the Taliban and the terrorists. That in itself proves that they are indeed no were near as reactionary as Islamists in their aims.

The truth is that there is no Christian Taliban. And that is because Christian fundamentalists do not want a Taliban. Indeed, they were the first in line to fight to overthrow the real Taliban when the war was declared. Funny that the extreme leftists were the first in line to protest the war against the Taliban. If the left wants to see the nature of the beast of bigotry, perhaps they need not keep searching the ranks of sixty year old Midwesterners that cant understand how a man can marry a man, but rather they can search within themselves for the people that hate Christian fundamentalists and everything they represent simply because they believe in Biblical salvation. Is that a phrase that makes shivers crawl down your spine? Biblical salvation? My apologies to my leftist comrades who I commit treason against, but that is bigotry.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, popular or not.

But in mine, that reads more like something I'd expect to find on Phyllis Schlafly's blog.

Or Ann Coulter's.

[charlie]

87. You're getting your chain yanked

But you know that :)

[beam me up scottie]

88. ARGH

It gets YANKED all day at work!

I can't take anymore!!!

[Warpy]

149. Or John Gibson's.

Honestly, that's an awfully broad brush, that "the left hates Christians" brush, suitable for whitewashing all sorts of pseudo Christian excesses and painting the left a color that doesn't suit it at all.

The position is unpopular around here because it is so untrue, unfair, and downright cruel.

Most of the left ARE Christian, by the way, something anyone with sense and the ability to listen and learn would know.

[varkam]

89. I find it ironic...

that your blog's title is "VoiceofReason".

The crucial difference between the Christian fundamentalists and the Islamic fundamentalists is that the mainstream Christian variety believes in operating within the law and believes in democracy and freedom.

Correct in a sense. Islamic fundamentalists believe very heavily in operating within the law. Islamic law. Ditto for Christian fundamentalists and Christian law. Not secular law, which I'm guessing was the connotation you were striving for.

Would the leftists like to actually look at the argument that the constitution does not guarantee the right to an abortion and therefore making it illegal is not a crime?

No. But it does guarantee freedom, which one could argue extends to reproductive autonomy.

Christian fundamentalists at least try to make arguments that do not rely on the bible for support.

I'll smoke what you're smoking. Crack, right?


You don't happen to be a tall, leggy, blond woman in a short skirt, do you?

[beam me up scottie]

91. And

she's a feminist too.

Just what we need.

[salvorhardin]

92. Well, at least Melinda Barton

Can say she knows at least one atheist she doesn't consider a whackjob. ;-)

[beam me up scottie]

93. Her sister?

I thought they dropped a house on her in that movie, but it looks like you're right.

[kaffiria]

95. Im no blonde

lol, I just put a pic up.

--Correct in a sense. Islamic fundamentalists believe very heavily in operating within the law. Islamic law. Ditto for Christian fundamentalists and Christian law. Not secular law, which I'm guessing was the connotation you were striving for.--

No. Secular law is what they deal with. So long as you work within the framework of the democratic process of voter support for elected officials (assuming 2004 wasn't stollen) and the things done dont overtly violate the constitution, they are in the clear. Unlike the Islamic fundies that dont give a rats ass for democratic processes, constitutions or anything and simply demand Shariah law based on the Quran as they do in the UK and actually practiced in Canada.

--
No. But it does guarantee freedom, which one could argue extends to reproductive autonomy.
--

I would say so. I would say the amendment that bans slavery should be interpreted to include a woman's right not to be enslaved to the fetuses physical maintainance. Of course, that is a bit of a streach and an opposing argument can certainly be made that doesnt violate the constitution.

--

I'll smoke what you're smoking. Crack, right?

--

Ever tried talking to an Islamic fundementalist?

"Salaam. Allah is great. The Prophet (peace be upon him) declared that stoning was the right punishment for adultery. Allah knows best"

I mean, that's the whole argument and they can't even understand how any other argument could be made.

[varkam]

97. Oh okay...

I think salvor just dealt with the first one...

I'll just deal with the last one, where I said I would smoke what you were smoking was referring to this:

Christian fundamentalists at least try to make arguments that do not rely on the bible for support.

Do you know what the word "fundamentalist" means? The bible is the foundation for a fundamentalists world view. Just definitionally speaking, a fundamentalist does not make his or her arguments on the basis of anything but the bible. The ID proponents (which you mention as an example of "fundamentalists" not using the bible for support in arguments) are not fundamentalists! A fundamentalist believes that everything happened just like it says in the bible. ID is an attempt to reconcile theology with secular world knowledge that directly contradicts the tenets that the fundamentalists rely upon.

[kaffiria]

101. ok

While it is true that real christian literalists believe in genesis of the Bible and not ID, they still are not trying to implement the laws of Deutoronomy and numbers. I doubt many of them care to even read what deutoronomy says.

The amount of people that are christian fundementalists in this country is quite high. Almost none of them are trying to stone people for having sex or entirely destroy every other religious group, which is precisely what Islamic fundementalists do within their own community. According to ABC news 20% of evangelical christians want gay marriage to be legal. That's marriage- the amount of evangelicals that would want gay sex to actually be illegal is small.

[beam me up scottie]

102. Really? ABC news?

How about Fox?

What does Fox say?

[charlie]

106. Evangelical does not = fundamentalist

There probably aren't any fundamentalists in that 20% sample. Jimmy Carter is an evangelical.

[salvorhardin]

90. Gah! Where does one begin?

The crucial difference between the Christian fundamentalists and the Islamic fundamentalists is that the mainstream Christian variety believes in operating within the law and believes in democracy and freedom. They really do believe this; hence they are appalled by people who don’t believe this such as the Islamic fundamentalists.
http://rationallia.typepad.com/voiceofreason/2006/06/the_christian_t.html

Eric Rudolph?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-17-rudolph-monday-sentencing_x.htm

James Kopp?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2864159.stm

Timothy Layhaye? Granted, he's never acted out violently, but have you ever read those damn Left Behind books? did you see the thread about the video game?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x73160

You might argue that these are outliers, but they are representative of at least a portion of population that does believe in fundamentalist Christianity.

Look, I don't like it when believers are called American Taliban either. But it would have been easier, and more conducive to communication, if you had just said, "Hey, you know, that bothers me."

[NMMNG]

94. The left's "absolute intolerance for religion"?

Or the left's intolerance for religious fascism?


There is no “if this was a theocracy like Iran” because if the 30% of society that can be called Christian fundamentalists had equivalent mindsets with the Islamic fundamentalists then they would not at all cooperate with a secular democratic system. Instead, they would overthrow all “man made” laws and declare a theocracy.

They're working on that. Just because they are doing it slowly doesn't mean that it isn't happening. Outlawing gay marriage, forcing gay teens into abusive "deprogramming" camps to force them to "turn" straight, "abstinence only" sex education, pressuring the FDA into not allowing the "morning after" pill to be sold over-the-counter, creeping abortion bans, making it harder and harder for women to get legally prescribed contraceptives, attempt after attempt to force ID and prayer into public schools and so on.

The crucial difference between the Christian fundamentalists and the Islamic fundamentalists is that the mainstream Christian variety believes in operating within the law and believes in democracy and freedom.

No, the Christian Fundamentalists believe in changing the law so it suits their agenda. They want to ban anything they don't approve of, and force their beliefs onto everyone via legislation. They don't approve of birth control so they want to make sure women have to go through hell to get it. They don't approve of abortion so they are working to get it outlawed wherever they can. They believe in Intelligent Design so they want it taught in public schools with tax dollars. They despise gays so they work to get gay marriage, gay adoption and other gay rights outlawed wherever they can. It's all about them and what they want--screw what the rest of America wants.

They really think the Lacy Peterson law is the slippery slope to illegalizing birth control pills. 20 seconds of silent prayer in school is the slippery slope to making Christianity the nation’s official religion. An amendment against gay marriage, the most right wing conservative action this administration has attempted, is pure hatred and bigotry against gays.

They are already working on making it impossible for women to get birth control pills, and the next step is to make them illegal. What is this "silent prayer" thing you are talking about? They don't want silent prayer in schools--they've had the opportunity for silent prayer all along and that's not good enough for them. They want to have the opportunity for vocal prayer--nothing else will do for them. Once that's in there they'll want Bible readings, then entire Bible classes, then who knows what else. And one state has already proposed making Christianity the state's official religion so why do you act like the idea is so far-fetched? As to the FMA, of course it is hatred and bigotry. If the federal government attempted to make an amendment to the Constitution that denied you a basic civil right would you not consider it bigoted and hateful?


Voice of Reason my backside. :eyes:

[salvorhardin]

96. Woo hoo!

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :yourock: :toast: :bounce: :bounce: :hi: :loveya: :loveya: :hi: :bounce: :bounce: :toast: :yourock: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

[kaffiria]

98. well

--They're working on that. Just because they are doing it slowly doesn't mean that it isn't happening. Outlawing gay marriage, forcing gay teens into abusive "deprogramming" camps to force them to "turn" straight, "abstinence only" sex education, pressuring the FDA into not allowing the "morning after" pill to be sold over-the-counter, creeping abortion bans, making it harder and harder for women to get legally prescribed contraceptives, attempt after attempt to force ID and prayer into public schools and so on. --

This is not even remotely close to the Taliban in terms of ideology or methods. Kabul resembled towns in New Zealand in the 1960s. They were not the tribal bandits stuck in the middle ages they are now. They had TVs, miniskirts, universities. Then the Islamic fundementalist minority took over and turned it into the Taliban. The Christian fundementalist minority isnt doing that as they did in Iran, are doing in Turkey and did in Afghanistan.

Working slowly within the process of elected legislatures, appointed judges and elected govenors is a completely legal way of doing things.

The Islamic fundies do not ask to take small steps backward. No matter what is going on, they only want 7th century Shariah law. Small steps forward and backward is the way of democracy. If you dont like it, then you can try dialogue and lobbying to the christian fundies and try to change their minds. Or you can try to tell the centrists how dangerous the christian fundies are.

But Im sorry. There is no way that I am going to equate making morning after pills remain unavailable over the counter with fundementalists that chopped women's fingers off for wearing nail polish, made marriage legal at 7 yrs old, stone 13 yr olds for being molested by their family members. That is the real taliban. The same people that make morning after pills remain unavailablke over the counter are the ones that totally abhor all the crap Islamofundies do because their goals have nothing in paticular in common.

[beam me up scottie]

100. Have you ever heard the term "Dominionism" ?

Does the name "R. J. Rushdoony" ring any bells?

[salvorhardin]

103. I love the smell

of premillenial dispensationalism in the morning.

[beam me up scottie]

104. I thought it was pizza.

[charlie]

107. The people who make morning after pills unavailable

abhor Muslims of any sort. They don't get a gold star for hating Islamofundie atrocities, everyone does. And yes, they do have a particular goal in common, theocracy.

The gist of your argument seems to be, don't worry about cancer, it's not ebola.

[beam me up scottie]

108. charlie

Cancer.

Did you realize how appropo that was when you typed it?

Cancer.

Just ignore it, it won't be so bad...

[charlie]

109. It's a weird strawman argument

Names like Talibornagain or "American Taliban" are tossed around as hyperbole or a sort of grim humor, but the only one seriously conflating Christian fundamentalists with Islamic fundies is our new visitor. She tots them up side by side and our fundies don't measure up. Big surprise.

[kaffiria]

111. not really

ahem, why dont you try and look at all the posts about how the 28% of America that believes in the Bible word for word has the ultimate goal of establishing a theocracy- an accusation that has been repeated a few times now. Apparently they also arent interested in following secular law and whatnot.

As for no one thinking that the Christian Taliban is a real concept,

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

As to the conservative opinion of that:

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200505020944.asp

[charlie]

114. Ahem, yourself

Kindly point me to the favorable comparisons to the Taliban in the Yurica article. I see them described as Machiavellians often enough, but not the finger and arm-chopping thugs you warn us about. American theocracy isn't some clever code phrase for Talibanism, they're different in degree and kind. Again, you cling to the notion that since they're not Taliban, no worries.

[kaffiria]

110. you think

The 28% of people that take the Bible word for word according to Gallup abhor all muslims?

Do you even know any christian fundies? That is totally totally untrue! Very few christian fundemantlists hate all muslims. The ones that do are the stormfront variety that hate all dark people. I would know. I am "muslim" by heritage and all the christian fundies where I live sure did not give me any special trouble. Tried to convert me, but jeez, I'll live.

"All muslims are like that" is garbage made up by Islamic pundits to shift the debate away from the problems within their/my community.

--The gist of your argument seems to be, don't worry about cancer, it's not ebola.--

Wrong. Take appropriate precautions against the flu but dont agonize as though its cancer because its not.

[charlie]

112. Poorly worded

You caught me. The bulk of them abhor Islam. Plenty enough of them abhor Muslims. And yes, I do know Christian fundies, I grew up neck deep in them and I've heard enough of what they talk about when people like you aren't around. It's not "totally totally" untrue.

No, it's cancer. You can blithely dismiss little data points like pharmacies and creationism in schools, but they add up. They are busy institutionalizing their gains so that we'll be dealing with their wreckage for many years to come, in our civil service, the judiciary, and laws. I don't know if you've noticed, but they're authoritarians, not keen on following the law when it doesn't suit them. It only takes the likes of a Scalia or Alito to change the course of the country on matters much weightier than pharmacies.

[kaffiria]

116. kizz

--They are busy institutionalizing their gains so that we'll be dealing with their wreckage for many years to come, in our civil service, the judiciary, and laws. I don't know if you've noticed, but they're authoritarians, not keen on following the law when it doesn't suit them. It only takes the likes of a Scalia or Alito to change the course of the country on matters much weightier than pharmacies--

So far, their wreckage has very little to do with religion and much more to do with manipulating the religious population with total garbage issues like flag burning and gay marriage amendments so they can put money in their pockets and indulge in personal vendettas.

Perhaps if the left didnt hate christian literalism so much then they would actually be willing to vote democrat. Who's going to vote for a party whose supporters think that your beliefs are all about hating gays and enslaving women?

War in Iraq? Hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands dead, thousands of new terrorists, international alienation. That is wreckage. Selling a book about how God created the grand canyon in 6 days in a govt owned national park store? Who the phuck cares. Let em have it and then they wont have to vote for Iraq wars.

[charlie]

119. Now, that's funny

Iraq is wreckage. Thanks for the bulletin. You want to hang that on the left's not wooing fundies with Chick tracts in the parks? Or maybe it it's resisting ID. Or not banning pornography. Yes, those might be enough to cool beliefs of American exceptionalism under God, premillennialist fantasies, and the big fear of Islam. Cede them the small stuff and they would've told George to go piss up a rope, no matter how often God told him to flatten Iraq. Not freaking likely.

Their wreckage "so far" isn't the crest of their influence, even if they packed it in tomorrow. The burst of liberal activism from the late 50s into the 60s affects America to this day.

[NMMNG]

113. You don't seem to get it

This is not even remotely close to the Taliban in terms of ideology or methods. Kabul resembled towns in New Zealand in the 1960s. They were not the tribal bandits stuck in the middle ages they are now. They had TVs, miniskirts, universities. Then the Islamic fundamentalist minority took over and turned it into the Taliban.

Yes. Look what they did in 40 years. And look what the Christofascists have done in only six years. Can you imagine what they would do given 34 more years?


Small steps forward and backward is the way of democracy. If you don't like it, then you can try dialog and lobbying to the christian fundies and try to change their minds. Or you can try to tell the centrists how dangerous the christian fundies are.

Trust me, I have been and still am.


Working slowly within the process of elected legislatures, appointed judges and elected governors is a completely legal way of doing things.

Is lying to people, making huge donations to gain favor from politicians and manipulating peoples' religious beliefs to push your agenda a "completely legal way of doing things"?


But I'm sorry. There is no way that I am going to equate making morning after pills remain unavailable over the counter with fundamentalists that chopped women's fingers off for wearing nail polish, made marriage legal at 7 yrs old, stone 13 yr olds for being molested by their family members. That is the real taliban. The same people that make morning after pills remain unavailable over the counter are the ones that totally abhor all the crap Islamofundies do because their goals have nothing in paticular in common.

These are the people who want to take women's rights back centuries. They want women to be subservient to men, unable to make decisions about their own bodies even when their lives are in danger, and to be little more than brood sows. They want gays to have no legal rights, and some of them even want it to be legal for gays to be executed as per the Bible. They want the Bible to be the supreme Law of the Land, even above the US Constitution. They abhor the Muslims only because they are not Christians and they therefore present a danger to the "Christian way of life". They are, however, exactly like the "Islamofundies" in that they want to impose their religious beliefs on the entire nation any way they can, but particularly via the legal system. The more power they get, the more they want and strive to get. They will work to take over the nation piece by piece until it is fully in their grasp unless they are stopped.

[kaffiria]

115. and what?

--Yes. Look what they did in 40 years. And look what the Christofascists have done in only six years. Can you imagine what they would do given 34 more years? --


What have they done? There are a few counties in Texas that teach absitance only, there was a state or two that wanted to teach ID, as before, you cant get morning after pills over the counter, 1 state tried to make nearly all abortions illegal (the state that already has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world and has a population of less than a million).

--Is lying to people, making huge donations to gain favor from politicians and manipulating peoples' religious beliefs to push your agenda a "completely legal way of doing things"? --

why not? Is making promises you dont intend to keep legal for politicians? Yes.

--These are the people who want to take women's rights back centuries. They want women to be subservient to men, unable to make decisions about their own bodies even when their lives are in danger, and to be little more than brood sows. They want gays to have no legal rights, and some of them even want it to be legal for gays to be executed as per the Bible. They want the Bible to be the supreme Law of the Land, even above the US Constitution. They abhor the Muslims only because they are not Christians and they therefore present a danger to the "Christian way of life". They are, however, exactly like the "Islamofundies" in that they want to impose their religious beliefs on the entire nation any way they can, but particularly via the legal system. The more power they get, the more they want and strive to get. They will work to take over the nation piece by piece until it is fully in their grasp unless they are stopped.
--

haha, and I was told the christian talibanphobe was a straw man.

You are about as batty as the right winger that things the left will dismantle the military, turn to marxism and destroy the family unit. You are just making things up.

1 in 3 takes the bible literally and according to the first page of this site, 1-3% of America thinks gay marriage is the most important issue to be discussing now. huh? I thought hating gays and establishing biblical theocracy was their first and only priority. Who'd have thunk they'd rather be focusing on foreign policy and deficit spending.

[NMMNG]

120. I don't know where you get your "facts"

What have they done? There are a few counties in Texas that teach assistance only, there was a state or two that wanted to teach ID, as before, you cant get morning after pills over the counter, 1 state tried to make nearly all abortions illegal (the state that already has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world and has a population of less than a million).

Abstinence only is taught in more than "a few counties in Texas".

In South Carolina, state law severely restricts sex education. There can be no discussion of contraception except with reference to marriage, no discussion of abortion, and nothing said about homosexuality except with reference to preventing sexually transmitted diseases. And in Texas, at least since the days when George W. Bush was governor, sex ed classes almost exclusively espouse abstinence-only messages.

snip

To make matters worse, the administration and Congress have played favorites with your tax money, with abstinence-only money going disproportionately to Arizona, Florida, Georgia and Texas. In contrast, Vermont received the least amount of federal funding. Maybe the kids in Vermont cannot hear admonitions to remain chaste amidst the sound of falling snow?

Eleven states have tried to evaluate their abstinence-only programs and the results have been dismal. In Kansas, the evaluators stated that "no changes noted in participants' actual or intended behavior." Evaluators of the Texas program found the same thing — no change in the number of students pledging to remain celibate until marriage. In fact, more students reported having had sex after taking an abstinence-only sex ed course then they did beforehand.

snip
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9504871/



Public funds go to religious institutions for anti-sexuality education. In Montana, the Catholic diocese of Helena received $14,000 from the state's Department of Health & Human Services for classes in the "Assets for Abstinence." In Louisiana, a network of pastors is bringing the abstinence-only message to religious congregations with public funds, and the Governor's Program on Abstinence is appointing regional coordinators and other staff members from such religious organizations as the Baptist Collegiate Ministries, Rapides Station Community Ministries, Diocese of Lafayette, Revolution Ministries, Caring to Love Ministries, All Saints Crusade Foundation, Concerned Christian Women of Livingston, Catholic Charities, Christian Counseling Center, and Community Christian Concern ("Abstinence Program's...," 2000; "Diocese Will...," 2000).


Public schools host "chastity" events. In California, Pennsylvania, Alabama, and many other states, schools regularly host chastity pledges and rallies on school premises during school hours. During these rituals, students often pledge "to God" that they will remain abstinent until they marry (Gish, 2000; Neill, 2000; Todd, 1999; "Valentine's Day...," 2000).

snip

In Illinois, critics blasted a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention program, called "Reducing the Risk," because they claim it is inconsistent with an abstinence-only message (Craig, 1997; "Group Calls...," 2000).

snip
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/teensexualhealth/fact-abstinence-education.xml



there was a state or two that wanted to teach ID, as before



Indiana: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051103/NEWS02/511030467/1006/NEWS01

Kansas: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/july-dec05/evolution_8-05.html

Pennsylvania: http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16372prs20041214.html

California: http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=7783

Then we have:

Florida
In the election last fall, three candidates for the Palm Beach County
School Board and four candidates for the Martin County School Board stated that
they favor the teaching of creationism along with evolution in the public schools.
Two of those candidates won the election. Palm Beach Post, November 8, 2000;
Palm Beach Post, September 3, 2000.

snip

Indiana
In January 2000, Rep. Gary Cook (D-Plymouth) and Rep. Dennis Kruse
(R-Auburn) co-authored and introduced a bill in the state legislature that would
have permitted the governing body of a school corporation to require the teaching
of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science. Rep.
Cook told students at Plymouth High School: “We felt that if evolution is taught
in the schools, the students should be given a choice of learning about creation,
too.” The bill was not given a hearing in the House Education Committee. South
Bend Tribune, January 30, 2000. See also Indiana General Assembly Home Page,

snip

Louisiana
The Supreme Court of the United States refused to review a case from the
Fifth Circuit, striking down the Tangipahoa Parish school board’s decision to
require that the teaching of evolution must be accompanied by a disclaimer
mentioning “the biblical version of creation” and other teachings on life’s origins.
Associated Press, June 19, 2000; New York Times, June 25, 2000.

snip

Maryland
Two candidates, Deran S. Eaton and Edward Pinchback Holland, III, who
were running in the Charles County school board elections in the fall of 2000,
favored teaching creationism as well as evolution in the public schools. Both
candidates stated that they would like to see schools incorporate more religion
into the curriculum. Eaton is vice chairman of Concerned Families of Maryland
Coalition, a right-wing organization calling for smaller federal government
involvement in education and the return of moral value instruction to public
schools.

snip

Michigan
In February 2001, a bill (HB 4382) was introduced in the state legislature
that would require that creationism be taught in middle and high schools.
Specifically, the bill requires that state science standards be revised such that
evolution must be referred to as “an unproven theory” and that students must be
required to explain competing theories, such as “that life is the result of the
purposeful, intelligent design of a creator.” The bill was referred to the Education
Committee.

snip
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/creationismreport.pdf

Let's see, that's ......9. A bit more than "1 or 2".

1 state tried to make nearly all abortions illegal (the state that already has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world and has a population of less than a million).

South Dakota did make nearly all abortions illegal http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/abortion/sdabortionlaw06.html . It doesn't matter what its population is or how many abortions it previously had before this law was enacted. What matters now is that only the wealthy women will be able to go out of state to get their abortions, and the poor women will be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.


Now that SD has succeeded several states are making their own attempts:

Meantime, a bill is advancing in the Mississippi Legislature. Measures are floating in the legislatures in Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia and Kentucky.

snip

In Missouri, state Sen. Jason Crowell, a Republican, has introduced a proposed new law and an amendment to the state constitution - a move that would go on the November ballot. Both of his proposals would make anyone who performs abortion liable to a felony prison sentence of 15 years unless the procedure was needed to save the woman's life.
http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/14022948.htm


Give them an inch, they take a mile.



You are about as batty as the right winger that things the left will dismantle the military, turn to marxism and destroy the family unit. You are just making things up.

You think so, eh?

Almost everything uttered at the rally stoked this deeply held feeling of persecution, giving a righteous cast to some of the speakers' vows of vengeance. "Those people on the secular left, they say, 'We think you're a threat,'" said Donohue. "You know what? They're right." This brought laughter, and more cheers.

snip

Of course, the concern about (Judge Charles)Pickering's comment at the hearings had to do with the implication that when the law contradicts his reading of the Bible, he sets the law aside. In the rhetoric surrounding Justice Sunday, though, expecting judges to put the law before their personal theology constitutes discrimination that threatens all Christians. "If it's Judge Pickering now, it can be you tomorrow," Mohler warned.

snip

Conflating the right to participate with the right to evangelize, Mohler said, "We are not calling for people to be moral, we want them to be believers in the Lord Jesus Christ."

hat's a valid position for a religious figure to take, perhaps, but since Mohler also argued that Christians can't separate their public responsibilities from their spiritual obligations, it seemed as if he was arguing for the right of judges to impose Christianity. If so, the real problem isn't discrimination against "people of faith." It's the claim that "people of faith" have the right to discriminate.
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/25/justice_sunday/print.html



Among the hardest core of the Religious Right are those who embrace "reconstructionism," which advocates imposing a radically fundamentalist interpretation of "Biblical law" onto American society. On the September 4, 1998 Armstrong Williams talk show, Colorado talk-radio personality Bob Enyard called for the death penalty for gays and adulterers. Last year, a Christian radio talk-show host in Costa Mesa, California said, "Lesbian love, sodomy are viewed by God as being detestable and abominable. Civil magistrates are to put people to death who practice these things." The announcer urged listeners to contact legislators and ask that they enact capital punishment for homosexuality. The station manager called the program "an honest dialogue concerning Christian beliefs."
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2049



The next question related to literal interpretation of the Bible:


The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word 34%
The Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally 48%
The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man 15%
No Opinion 3%


http://www.arachnoid.com/opinion/religion.html

There is a huge difference between "1-3%" and 34%.




Again, where are you getting your "facts"? :shrug:

[SidDithers]

121. Thanks for putting that together...

That was an excellent, excellent summary post, Buffy. I'm bookmarking for future use.

:toast: :applause: :toast:

Sid

[Random_Australian]

122. Post bookmarked!

[salvorhardin]

126. I repeat myself...

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :yourock: :toast: :bounce: :bounce: :hi: :loveya: :loveya: :hi: :bounce: :bounce: :toast: :yourock: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

[kaffiria]

127. did you read?

--The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word 34%
The Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally 48%
The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man 15%
No Opinion 3%

--

Hello, I said 1 IN 3 people takes the Bible word for word while only 1-3% of people believes that gay marriage is the most pressing issue that congress needs to be talking about hence the biblical literalists are actually more concerned with other things- mostly the same things everyone else is concerned with.

Do you understand that we live in a democracy???

People like you with your militant secularism is the reason the republican party can put total assclowns like Bush on the ticket and come to power.

The republicans arent turning the US into a theocracy. They are throwing the fundies a bone here and there so they can continue to put money in their pockets.

If the democratic party would support some dumb crap like putting Bible quotes on public statues gave some lip service to how wonderful abstinance was (even though it serves no purpose), then the republicans would poof dissapear because the amount of those 34% of America that actually wants to enslave women and establish a theocracy is miniscule. All most of them want is to feel that their beliefs wont inspire total aversion.

You cannot alienate a whole 34% of the US population from a party. That is simply too large of a minority. If you dont do this, then they will continue to vote republican who will represent their undilluted will. As it is, that entire 34% of people will not listen to one word you say given your hostility to them. Me however- they listen to me more than you would think they are capable of.

[SidDithers]

128. Militant secularism?...

Government is either secular or it isn't. There is no middle ground. You can't be a mostly secular and a little bit Christian.

Allowing "dumb crap like putting Bible quotes on public statues" is a step in the wrong direction. Instead of caving in to the loudest whiners, why not educate about the need for Separation of Church and state, and why that separation protects the rights and freedoms of all Americans.



Sid

[salvorhardin]

131. Ah, militant secularism

Drinking at the trough of the far right wing propaganda again I see. Couldn't work 'activist judges' and 'homosexual agenda' into the post too?

I think I understand what you're getting at but your reasoning is faulty (as others have been pointing out) and your willingness to grab onto the same language as Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter is rather distressing.

You're right in that Democrats don't get framing, which is what you're really trying to get at. But it has nothing to do with "militant secularists". Even if you think the way us "whackjob atheists" go about doing things, since when have we had any pull in the Party? No, if the Democrats are unable to frame their message, or even present a coherent message, in a way that resonates with the deeply religious then that's their fault. And remember that framing is not just saying the same thing as Republicans but rather addressing the worldview of the audience and putting your own message into perspective.

Lakoff is of course the go-to guy on morality, linguistics and psychology. However even he has had trouble putting his ideas, which are good ones, into popular language and everybody gets hung up on the parental metaphor. However, a good place to start would be his suggestions on alternative analyses of moral pathologies.
http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html#MORALPATH

Also, Bora Zivkovic of Science and Politics (http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com) has done some solid blogging on these topics. You can find a lot of useful stuff in his archives.
http://borazivkovic.blogspot.com/2005/02/understanding-america.html

Oh, and on edit, one last thing: I would not be so quick to criticize Katherine Yurica. She has been studying the religious right before the term was coined, in particular Pat Robertson. You would do well to read and understand Katherine Yurica, Dave Neiwert, Chip Berlet and many others before forming your opinions. You should also know that people like Pat Robertson are all the more dangerous because they combine premillenial dispensationalism, separatism, and conspiracism. In particular Robertson and his protege Ralph Reed believe the Illuminati are working to bring about the New World Order (which will usher in the end times), along with the usual anti-semitic nonsense. In fact it is Pat Robertson's book from the early 1990s, The New World Order, that accounts for the current day popularity of that phrase.

[NMMNG]

146. "Militant Secularism"

There is no such thing.

It isn't Militant Secularists who created this abominable video game:

Imagine: you are a foot soldier in a paramilitary group whose purpose is to remake America as a Christian theocracy, and establish its worldly vision of the dominion of Christ over all aspects of life. You are issued high-tech military weaponry, and instructed to engage the infidel on the streets of New York City. You are on a mission - both a religious mission and a military mission -- to convert or kill Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, and anyone who advocates the separation of church and state - especially moderate, mainstream Christians. Your mission is "to conduct physical and spiritual warfare"; all who resist must be taken out with extreme prejudice. You have never felt so powerful, so driven by a purpose: you are 13 years old.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/29/195855/959







It isn't Militant Secularists who send their children to paramilitary rallies and camps like these:

"Life needs man to be fierce. Aggression is part of the masculine heart," Gilbert says.

The teens are part of "Boot Camp," a youth group that mixes Marine Corps values and combat techniques with Bible study. The concept is the brainchild of Hestand, who started the group in 2001 to encourage youth involvement in the church. As far as he knows, Boot Camp is unique in the Christian world.

snip

"We take the basic principles that are Christian and basic principles of warfare and we merge them," he said. "Our enemy is Satan. Our weapon is not an M-16, it's the Bible. We're trying to get them to be warriors for God."

snip

The next 20 minutes are dedicated to combat techniques, such as ambushes or guerrilla tactics. The last 45 minutes are spent on Bible study.

snip
http://www.lompocrecord.com/articles/2005/01/30/news/news20.txt


And it became clear during the BattleCry rally, all the talk of battles, warriors and war is not metaphor either.

snip

The "heart" of Graham's speech was a call for holy war. He preached about the "battle for souls of men and women from North to South, East to West, over the entire earth." There is, he declared, "No way to God but through Jesus Christ."

snip

While calling on the youth present to engage in this "battle for the souls of men," he exhorts them, "No souls can be saved without the shedding of blood. Blood must be shed!"

snip

I then followed the select group of Christian youth out into the corridor into the tent where we were told about Teen Mania's "Honor Academy", some type of Christian fundamentalist boot camp designed to replace the first year of college for 600 dollars a month. This is about the same price that I paid to go to Rutgers way back in the 1980s, but considerably less than it would cost to a decent private university today. I'm assuming this is half the point, that the kids who wind up attending the "honor academy" will be evaluated according how useful they'll be to the Christian right. The select will be given some type of financial help going to college. The financially well off will be fine in any case and the rest will be funneled into the military, Walmart, and various places where they can thump the Bible and act as the foot soldiers in the army for the coming Christian revolution.

snip
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/30/184833/169







"If the democratic party would support some dumb crap like putting Bible quotes on public statues gave some lip service to how wonderful abstinence was (even though it serves no purpose), then the republicans would poof disappear because the amount of those 34% of America that actually wants to enslave women and establish a theocracy is minuscule. All most of them want is to feel that their beliefs wont inspire total aversion. "



There are already statues of the Ten Commandments in public places. In God We Trust is on all of our currency, and Under God is in The Pledge of Allegiance. Still the Neocon/Fundamentalists are not happy. They want and always will want more.

They do not want to "give lip service to how wonderful abstinence is". They want "abstinence only" sex education, which has been proven to be ineffective and downright dangerous. It is filled with half truths, stereotypes and outright lies. Once again, they do not want a compromise, they want it their way.

The only reason their beliefs are inspiring any sort of aversion is because of their insistence on pushing them on the public so vehemently. Ban this TV show because WE don't like it. Ban gay marriage because WE don't like it. Teach Intelligent Design because WE believe in it. You must say Merry Christmas and not Happy Holidays because only OUR December holiday matters. There must be Christian prayer in public school because WE want it. On and on and on it goes. They are a small group but they make it impossible for anybody to get a break from their constant screaming.



"You cannot alienate a whole 34% of the US population from a party. "


But it's ok to alienate the other 66% to kiss their collective backsides? To write their wishes into law and do whatever it is they want? It certainly appears that is the case.

[Random_Australian]

147. "People like you" "militant secularism" is bad enough, but here is the

clincher for me: "If the democratic party would support some dumb crap like putting Bible quotes on public statues gave some lip service to how wonderful abstinance" I have a little extension.

If the democratic party would just Ok the war in Iraq, then they wouldn't be seen as not supporting the troops.^

In other words, you are advocating that the dems not even try to move the debate, let the fundies go, compete with the RW party to see who can give them the most, in fact.

Other notes:

"they listen to me more than you would think they are capable of" (emphasis mine) - given how this discussion has turned out, why are we to assume that you are a wonderful debater? You have not really backed up your statements, merely repeated them. (And used the words 'militant atheists' - a #1 sign that you cannot even comprehend the viewpoint espoused)

Finally:
"All most of them want is to feel that their beliefs wont inspire total aversion."

Say hello to my little friend:

The persecuted Christian complex

^ mark indicates example.

[JNelson6563]

148. LBN development on prayer in schools

Just caught this in LBN:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2327486

Trying to abolish evolution being taught in schools and force the right to prayer. Don't you love the wording? "A right to pray". haha As if we don't know what they are really aiming for.

Julie

[NMMNG]

156. Theofascist jerks

Any kid who wants to can pray all s/he wants in school, as long as it's done silently. And if these fools ever read the Bible they claim to base all of their principles on, they'd know that Jesus said people should pray in private, not in public for everyone to see like the showoff Pharisees. (Matthew 6:6)


But of course they only pay attention to the Bible when it means imposing the Bible on others, not when it means actually obeying it themselves. :eyes:

[opiate69]

155. Game, Set, Match..

Kick ass work, Buffy... :evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

99. Well there you go.

Very nice.

[Random_Australian]

118. Yes! AWESOME post Buffy!

[papau]

144. Good Grief - now I find I agree with Buffy and BMUS on this -great post

but I am certain Hell has frozen over or something ....

nah- not really -

but it is interesting to be agreeing!

for BMUS ... :-)

[beam me up scottie]

151. Hi papau.

I'll know Satan is making snow angels in Hell if any DUer does swallow that steaming pile of reich wing propaganda.

[charlie]

152. The two of you, say CHEESE

I'm snapping a picture, because otherwise who'll believe it?

[beam me up scottie]

153. We've actually agreed on other threads.

Just not in this forum.
:)

[Ian David]

105. Welcome to DU and enjoy your stay! n/t

[BurtWorm]

124. Interesting, but prejudiced, viewpoint.

Can you back some of your points up for me? You say Christians--fundamentalist Christians?--were the first to oppose the Taliban. Even if you mean "the first in the West," I find that hard to believe. Where's your evidence for that?

Also, if many in the left opposed the war against Afghanistan, is that necessarily inconsistent with an opposition to the Taliban? Did one have to be able to tolerate bombing non-Taliban Afghans to prove one's opposition to the unreason of the Taliban? If you don't trust the Bushists to govern the peace, how can you trust them to wage war? Haven't they proven over and over that not trusting their leadership in peace or war is the most rational position?

[Strong Atheist]

125. Why fundamentalists are rightly feared, Part 1.

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/03/24/67686

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1103AP_Vatican_Contraception.html

http://www.repentamerica.com/index.htm

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/29/195855/959 :scared:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060511_battle_cry_theocracy :scared:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article571676.ece

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article549446.ece

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/14688209.htm

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-christians10apr10,0,1491706,print.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines

http://www.amhersttimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1423&Itemid=27

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=67038&mesg_id=67038

http://www.hrc.org/

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/6/105913/0724

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2297272

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23323

Much more later ...

[onager]

129. Atheists are a "posse" now?

Cool. Why wasn't I informed? If Buffy and Trotsky didn't volunteer so much their time passing out those damn rubber chickens, maybe I'd get my EAC newsletter on time. (Though I do understand the labor involved in printing our newsletter with invisible ink on the back of those fake Fundie windshield flyers.)

This is important because some of us atheists are insecure, and occasionally we start believing the DU stereotypes about us being a bunch of grumpy, curmudgeonly loners plotting to overthrow Xianity in America. You know, sort of a combination of Mr. Wilson from "Dennis The Menace," Joe Stalin, and Lee Harvey Oswald.

[salvorhardin]

130. Windshield flyers?

My newsletter comes printed on the back of my Rice Krispies. The microscopic print is bad enough, but do we really need to use invisible ink that requires goat's blood to make it visible? Can't we just use milk like the Illuminati?

[varkam]

136. Uh, we're actually changing that...

Not goats blood anymore. Now you need the blood from a small, cute puppy to read the newsletters.

[salvorhardin]

141. Oh good

They're much easier to buy in bulk. Now who do I speak to about the advertising content? I understand the need for advertising, but must they all be for Uncle Dick's Quality Used Black Helicopters? Jeesh. You'd think Cheney would have hired a better ad agency once he became Grand High Proctor of the New World Illuminati Strike ForceVice-President.

On edit: And can we switch to Raisin Bran or Cornflakes or something. The mind control chemicals in the Rice Krispies leave a metallic taste in my mouth.

[varkam]

145. Objection noted.

I will forward your request to the head of advertising for EAP (evil atheist posse). Personally, I'm hoping for Special K Red berries.