Just because someone has religious beliefs does not make their vote any less valuable

[Perky]

to a democratic majority either in poltics generally or in an legislative body or executive office.

You do not have to agree with them on every jot and tittle, but if they vote with you because of their beliefs (whatever they may be) doesn't it make more sense to embrace them rather than scorn them?

[Bluebear]

1. You said tittle. nt

[gratuitous]

2. I happen to agree with you

But good luck with your perfectly reasonable and rational argument getting traction with some folks around here. (Although this post might cause a couple of them to resist posting.)

[AuntPatsy]

3. Oh common, I think that argument is getting old, they are not getting

scorned, its the very real threat that ninety nine percent of relgious doctrine hurts far too many American citizens....

How can you not understand why some are so upset when religious views are brought into political law making for ALL americans and just how wrong that is...

No one cares if someone believes in God or not, it is NOT the point..

[Perky]

6. I think there is a differnence between wanting to

push a religious agenda into politics and more importantly law and letting one's faith (again...whatever that faith may be) inform one's political beliefs.


Again if some one belives in the Biblical account of Creation want to vote for dems as a way of insuring equal rights for ALL americans should we not consider them an ally?

[AuntPatsy]

10. I have never felt that I was being pushed away from people because

of my personal beliefs, its nonsense that people like hannity, coulter, and the like keep pushing as fact, its bs in my view to believe the christian world is being picked on.

[me b zola]

135. Hmmm, like Log Cabin rePublicans are allies to the republicans?

Log Cabin rePublicans make a conscious decision to be a member of a political party that disrespects them at every turn because the bulk of their party platform ($$) appeals to them.

If someone is drawn to the Democratic platform who also believes in creationism, well that's fine but don't expect the party's platform to change for them.

[ellacott]

9. 99%?

come on.

[AuntPatsy]

12. I honestly believe that, you can show me how wrong I am by citing

links to prove me wrong but until then I will believe what I myself have read from many different sources as well as learning from my years of talking to people of all faiths and finding out what exactly they are being pushed to believe.

[ellacott]

19. Everyone wants links

Links won't change your mind. There a world out their outside of links. Exactly what are these links supposed to show. 99% is a grossly exaggerated figure. An understanding of what the Christian religion's doctrines are would be the source that you need.

[AuntPatsy]

23. You think not? I happen to believe myself capable of changing

my mind if proven wrong, so prove me wrong? My views have come from years of study from both books and man. Believe me, I know quite a bit about relgious doctrine.

[ellacott]

38. You want me to prove that my God is better than your God?

It's a fruitless endeavor. This has been debated for many, many years and never solves anything. I doubt I could change your considering you "know quite a bit about religious doctrine".

[AuntPatsy]

44. Your God My God? Are you serious? I wasnt aware we believed in different Gods/

[ellacott]

51. I thought you read about different doctrines?

Are YOU serious? All Doctrines don't beleive in the same God.

[AuntPatsy]

54. Ummm yes I said "read", how does that make me a believer in all that

what I have read believes? Sorry, you made no sense?

[spoony]

164. Hard to provide citations for something so

utterly absurd as that. Instead why don't you back up your argument, by breaking down religious doctrine and identifying the 99% that hurts people.

[havocmom]

4. The only scorn I have seen aimed at people for their religion aimed at fundies

who want their religion shoved down everybody's throat.

Many, if not most, DUers are people of faith. We have lots of members of clergy here on DU too.

Fail to see what your point is.

[Pastiche423]

262. "Many, if not most, DUers are people of faith."

Odd that you say that, when the DU polls I've seen for the past five + years, show agnostic/atheist w/the highest percentage.

[valerief]

5. We shouldn't be told their religious beliefs to begin with. It should be

private like their sex lives.

[Perky]

8. ok that is fine

but should we still not be tolerant of their beliuefs even if they keep them to themselves?

[More Than A Feeling]

15. What does "tolerant of their beliefs" mean to you? n/t

[Perky]

28. If they arrive at the same conclusions

but the route they travel to get there is through their faith. Does it really matter? SHouls we not be tolerant of their process?

[AuntPatsy]

34. If who arrives at the same conclusion?

[More Than A Feeling]

39. I can tolerate something without respecting it, and without having to censor myself.

I can respect and agree with their political conclusions even if I think their process is completely arbitrary. I don't hate anyone for acting by faith, so I am tolerant in that sense. I just think, as I said, that it is arbitrary, and there are better ways to go about it. If I didn't think my standard was better, I'd change my standard. They are welcome to their own standard, even as I disagree with it, and say I disagree with it, and explain the reasons why.

[AuntPatsy]

20. We? How much intolerance have you witnessed on DU???

I haven't witnessed all that much at all, Ive seen countless posts from people offering up prayers for those in troubled times, I have seen not seen all that many attacks for such posts, of course there are radicals on both sides that leave no room for tolerance but I would have to say with conviction that there is less tolerance coming from those with strong religious ties, some are more silent than others with how they attempt to ummmmm save souls so to speak

[spoony]

165. Lol, honestly I wonder what site some of you are reading

because it isn't the one that pops up on my screen. Every time someone mentions the steady stream of intolerance directed at religious people, Christians in particular, posts like this appear claiming to have either seen none of it or almost none of it. Hell, it's everywhere. It's quite distracting, actually.

[valerief]

155. If we didn't know what their beliefs were, we couldn't be intolerant, could we?

That's why the framers of the Constitution wanted a separation of church and state.

Some things we don't need to know. That's one of them.

[Bluerthanblue]

191. hmmm. kinda like don't ask don't tell eh? or

hide in the closet.....

Unfortunately ignorance of a persons actual "beliefs" doesn't protect them from being treated with intolerance- Intolerance is often a result of people making assumptions about others based on little factual knowledge, and many pre-conceived notions.

I don't advocate or support ANY kind of religious dogma being forced upon others. Nor can I support the silencing and marginalizing of people who acknowledge and practice- (not proselytize) their faith, as long as they do so without encroaching unduly on the freedom of others.

The framers of the Constitution didn't want a government sponsored religion- or any kind of requirement placed upon people to be pressured to conform to any 'religious' doctrine.- a very good choice i believe.

[valerief]

268. No, it's not like Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Letting people know if you're

gay is a personal choice and should not be suppressed by the government.

A candidate running for office who's telling voters if he/she has a religion is something voters do not need to know to make a judgment on whether to vote for that person, just like voters don't need to know that candidate's sex life (as long as it doesn't break the law) or that candidate's bowel movements or that candidate's favorite color or that candidate's marital status. Some things voters don't need to know.

[Perky]

273. I have to disgree

I want to know that a preaidential candidate has a belief in a higher power. Because belief in a higher powere suggest to me a self check against rampant ego.

It has relvance to how they choose to exercise the awesome powere of the presidency.

Does there need to be an inordinate focus of faith. absolutely not. In fact I would be highly suspocious of the motivations of someone who goes oiut of their way to mention it at every turn.

[valerief]

274. Oh, yes, you can see how well your reasoning has worked out in the current administration.

:banghead:

[Perky]

275. LOL well I had that one coming

The metghod is not full proof or is that foolproof

Nonethe less I think I think the issue is relevant to most voters if only for an instant.

[Prophet 451]

185. Depends what those beliefs actually are

If we're talking about mainstream Xianity (stuff like compassion, care for the poor, etc) then all well and good, nice to have 'em along for the ride but if we're talking about things like a rejection of science, violent homophobia, a belief in racial superiority (I work for Beliefnet.com, all these fringe sects really are out there) and similar then I think we can reasonably do without them (not least because, as a Luciferian, I'd be first on the pyre).

[JVS]

131. Since when do people keep their sex lives private?

[BlooInBloo]

7. It might, when you factor in the obvious costs of obtaining that vote.

[Perky]

16. Perhaps but perhaps not

Look religious people have many motivations besides just being religious. Many have a strong sense of justice and fairness and compassion and believe in serving others. Many religious people favor Privacy and equality, even when they may personally believe things that othere oppose.

[AuntPatsy]

24. Then there should be no problem should there be with demanding

church beliefs and state laws remain separate? I fail to see the problem here since you obviously believe that privacy and equality should be accounted for, I feel the same way.

[BlooInBloo]

37. Everyone here knows there's no problem. It's just christians mendaciously talking...

... about how oppressed and ill-respected they are, when in fact they run, and have always run, literally every facet of the United States government.

They already have power, what they don't have is the respect of the educated. (What good is power if those you have power over laugh at you?) They're trying to attain that respect, basically by whining, lying, all of the usual methods that religion uses. Predictably, it's not working so well.



EDIT: Stupid redundancy.

[AuntPatsy]

56. Wow, feel like I am in a room with faux talking points? I agree with you..

I have heard some whine about being ridiculed for being a christian and in the same breath say there is more of us christians in this country and therefore should be able to make the laws simply because there was more of them..amazing mindsets...one defeats the other, you are either a minority and being picked on or you aren't, you cannot be both.

[BlooInBloo]

60. Yup. The secular power of the majority, plus the moral power of the minority is what they want....

... And since when has consistency been an issue with religious folks?

[TahitiNut]

11. Nor does it make our vote any more valuable.

:shrug:

Faith informs the believer. It does NOT give license to impose those beliefs on another. There is absolutely NOTHING 'religious' about usurping "God's role."

[Perky]

18. Absolutely correct and well stated.

[Cabcere]

72. Very well said.

:thumbsup:

[More Than A Feeling]

13. Church is where you go to get your religious beliefs embraced and affirmed.

In politics, if people aren't willing to work with others for a common goal because they are of a different religious/secularist affiliation, and exercise their right to proclaim their opinions of different ones when the subject comes up, then perhaps politics is too rough for those people.

[spoony]

166. Yes, because really people shouldn't leave

the house if they don't want to be called idiotic lunatic fools and such. Imagine, requesting civility!

[More Than A Feeling]

174. Requests for civility can be seen as a method to shut down healthy critiques of supernatural ideas.

n/t

[spoony]

175. And, they can also be...requests for civility

Healthy critiques do not include the words I mentioned.

[More Than A Feeling]

176. Tearing down unearned respect for supernatural ideas in our society is a worthy goal.

Disrespect of those ideas (not necessarily the person holding them) is a legitimate tool toward that end. Whether a person chooses that path, and whom they choose to go down that path with, is a personal decision.

[spoony]

177. Speaking of unearned respect

You just lost any shot at mine. If a person can't even simply agree that religious people shouldn't be called idiots, insane, etc. without the utterly wishy-washy, ponderous qualifications you applied, I'm not going to waste my time trying to have a conversation with them, because chances are they think they're better than me anyway.

[More Than A Feeling]

179. Suit yourself. n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. it doesnt make their vote any MORE valuable either.

if only christians would follow christs advice and not mix politics with their religion at their convenience.

[AuntPatsy]

25. Bingo

[Perky]

41. I am not convinced that is Christ's advice

I read the Sermon on the Mount and see a call to "do justice", to elect Peacemakers...That does not mean imposing religion on anybody....It means letting your faith drive your party affiliation and who you like politically.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

43. well i am NOT at all convinced that christians are persecuted either

[Perky]

59. Ok so.... what's you point?

I never said they were and don't believe that they are?

[Greyhound]

58. Christ says, as the only peacemaker, you should support Dennis K.

Every other candidate, of both parties, seeks to be seen as "tough" and more than willing to waste the lives of others to attempt to impose our will around the world.

[AuntPatsy]

63. Good point.

[AuntPatsy]

61. Well, good on you, I am not trying to convince you to alter your way

of living your life, what I am trying to get through to you is that your personal beliefs have NO right to push others to believe as you in a court of law OR in a political arena, one that SWEARS to uphold the rights of ALL americans, can you not understand?

In your home and with your children you have a right to live the way you so choose and to raise your children the way you see fit, but if you expect the government of the United States to do ensure others live the same way you are in fact infringing on another's right of free choices which this country was founded on...

You know, there are other countries who push religious doctrine on it's citizens and demand they obey it all fear of imprisionment or death is used to ensure they follow the rules, do you honestly wish the same for this country?

[trotsky]

92. Can you point out exactly where Jesus says to...

elect peacemakers?

[AuntPatsy]

103. this is all that I found. Pretty much the same thing don't you think?

Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.



Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.
James 3:17-18 (in Context) James 3 (Whole Chapter)

[trotsky]

110. Yeah except for that part about electing them.

Of course there have been Christians here on DU claiming that Christianity was the original source of the very concept of civil rights, so nothing surprises me when it comes to stretching the truth to embellish one's religion.

[AuntPatsy]

115. the only electing theme I found was when God told Moses to elect

others to worry about the small problems while he himself was told to worry about the big ones, makes me wonder what is considered big and or small..

[Forkboy]

17. Another day,another pity party.

[supernova]

21. I have religious and spiritual beliefs

but I don't feel devalued here at DU, quite the opposite, actually.

Your OP is disingenuous. Your "vote" is no less valuable to the country. It's a question of what positions DU wants to be associated with.

[SecularMotion]

22. Do you have a problem

voting the same way as someone who disagrees with your religious beliefs?

[Perky]

29. No not all.

[Solon]

26. I cringe everytime something like this is brought up...

First things first, do NOT substitute "religious beliefs" with "Christian beliefs" because, in THIS country, those are the beliefs we are talking about. Out of 535 people in Congress, we have exactly 1 Non-Religious Buddhist, 1 Muslim, and 1 Non-theist. As far as I can tell, Keith Ellison doesn't use his Mosque as a photo op, and the other two simply don't talk that much about their beliefs, at least publicly.

Here's a clue slick, about 1 in 4 Americans are Non-Christian, and I would bet my left nut that most are religious to one degree or another. It may not be the "right" religion to you, but please don't claim to speak for them, 90% of them PREFER that Christian talk by candidates is kept to an absolute minimum, thank you very much.

[Perky]

30. I speak for no one but myself.

I have never claimed otherwise.

[Solon]

31. Well then, stop bitching about it, Christians are OVERREPRESENTED in government already...

so stop whining already. To be frank, its tiring.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

33. as bluejay said yesterday

[Solon]

42. That Pie chart reminds me a little bit of Pac-Man...

I'm expecting him to chomp down on everyone else.

[Forkboy]

82. They would if they could.

[spoony]

167. Inane simplicity is such an unappealing trait in debate

Individuals of any group can experience oppression, derision, ridicule, insults, hostility... Particularly here, if one happens to be a Christian or even otherwise religious.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

183. while an individual christian may face oppression based on other salient characteristics

they hardly face oppression based on christianity in the united states.

pretending that they are oppressed is a slap in the face of those who are really oppressed.

[Goblinmonger]

207. Damn straight

DU is all about being atheist baby. If you even hint that you are religious, we're going to fire up the torches and come for your ass. Even THINK a bad thing about an atheist and you will be in for some serious-ass re-education. DO. NOT. make me go all clockwork orange on your ass.





In case you missed it: :sarcasm:

[Tyler Durden]

27. The problem is on a matter of TOLERANCE.

Religious belief is by its very nature intolerant. If it were not so, then there would never be another inquisition or jihad.

You see, if your belief says something that is publically held as a right (abortion, same sex marriage, female equality) is immoral or at least in violation of some dogma, then we are immediately at loggerheads.

[AuntPatsy]

32. Firmly agree, it is a real problem to me that laws are being based

on religious intolerance of certain issues that concern ALL of our citizens not a select few, it is what should make this country great but if not addressed such could destroy our so called peaceful existance with eachother.

This adminstration has used it's reign of power to incite hate and intolerance, if some believe that to be a christian means they are more worthy than another I find that problematic...and everyone should....

What I find a bit ironic is that it is well know that the master mind Rove behind their beloved bushy who swears by the word of God doesn't even believe, he is an athetist and has admitted such. And yet that bit of information is not so widely known...that doesn't bother me, he is pure evil period regardless of his personal beliefs.

[ellacott]

47. Rove is agnostic

[AuntPatsy]

65. I read he was an atheist, well, even the agonostics were seen as heathens

by the early christian church....

[Critters2]

265. He's an Episcopalian. nt

[Perky]

36. Ah but that is precisely it.

While I may have a personal view on abortion based on my religious conviction. I full recognize that I can not expect my views to be imposed on anyone else in a largely secularized society. Anyone who thinks otherwise (those that would want to impose their view) does not understand the fundcamentals of their faith and believes in a heresy.

[Solon]

46. I find this ironic, but here is a link from a Google Ad from this very thread...

http://www.thercg.org/books/scv.html?gclid=CJyHtejM_IsCFQlQWAodnn42bQ

Let's just say the headline ended up catching my eye.

[Tyler Durden]

62. And it makes you very unique....

...beware of fellow Christians bearing firewood and torches.

[Perky]

66. I battle those type every waking day

I firmly believe it is a Heresy because it replaces humility, prayer and love of Christs with raw political power with the folloish hope that it will have the same effect. It is heretical at is core.

[AuntPatsy]

70. Do you believe in the stoning of heretics? The kind James version

of the bible does in the old testament, consider this, the difference tone between the old testament and the new, why are they both put together in the same book when it is more then obvious for those that have read it from front to back that in some instances the rules change....

Does this mean that what God wanted man to do to others when it came to reigning in the sins as well as the sinners in the old testament was wrong? I think that would be a kind of heresay to even suggest that God was ever wrong wouldn't you?

[Perky]

76. Well my personal belief is that the OT

Is about God calling a particular people to live by his commands. But that in so doing, those commands are only meant to be for that group of people. If you note there is no evangelism in the OT. Isreal was call to live itself by those edicts not to impose those beliefs in others. and there in lies the heresy. The fundies think they ahve an obligation to impose OT commands on the larger society. It has little to do Christ it solely about an imposition of a morality on others.

[Goblinmonger]

81. Isn't that convenient?

So the Jews have to follow the shitty laws, but even though your god proclaimed them, you are exempt. Whatever gets you through the day, I guess.

[AuntPatsy]

85. Never heard it put quite like that before when defending the inconsistancies

and I have visited a few different churches...interesting and scary in the same light.

[Perky]

87. You have to look at the context.

God Brings a tribe out of Slavery. And says I am giving you this land. You can keep the land if you live by the laws I give you. It was very clearly laws for Isreale not gor every one eles who was not Isreal. the Fundies think the laws are meant for everyone. Not

[Goblinmonger]

91. Why not just take the next step

and admit that the OT wasn't divinely inspired and was written by humans of the time for other humans of the time? Some of it is good and some of it is shit.

If it is only laws from God for those specific Israelites, then why is it such a big seller? Why is it called the Holy Bible?

[AuntPatsy]

106. Good question, if those laws only applied to the Jewish people why was I taught

the old testament as well as the new in a few different churches, doesn't make sense to me if the Old Testament doesn't even apply to me...

[AuntPatsy]

105. If all men are created equal, Genesis, why in the world would

you think that God in all his glory would deem men not equal enough to have to follow the same laws? Have you studied the origins of how the bible came to be yet? It would explain much.

[AuntPatsy]

84. ahhhh I get you now, it was for those people, "Jewish" and I would

assume you believe that group of people to be considered different by God? I thought all man was made in God's image? why would he impose stricter rules on some and not others? It makes NO sense, can you not see that?

That is NOT an answer that I can safely say gives you a valid comeback in answer to my question, it IGNORES the truth that religious doctrine CANNOT be taken at face value like some demand, you cannot PICK and choose what you believe God to be telling you what to do...

I'm sorry, but God cannot be that foolish as to believe he was wrong the first time and so decided to change his stance on many issues, after all even Bush won't do that regardless of innocent lives lost...are you saying that God is not strongor smart enough to stay on track and not back peddle?

And not to dissapoint you but it is not simply the old testament that has passages that demand one follows certain commands regardless of the outcome of those practices meaning becoming a martry for a good cause..


Are you aware at all of how the bible was even put together and who had the last say in what stayed and what did not?

[Perky]

90. Have you read the OT as history?

[Goblinmonger]

93. Guess who it says are the chosen people?

Hint: Not you. The ones that the OT was "meant for." Maybe the NT is just the wimp-ass version for the Christians that don't have the balls of the Jewish people.

[AuntPatsy]

114. LOL don't mean to laugh but it is a bit ironic that people take other

written words of the bible at face value and yet don't believe it when it is written that the Jewish people are only God's children, the rest are infidels....I assume you have to revert to Jewism in a sense if you wish to be known as God's real children. Perhpas the rest of us were adopted?

Not meaning to make fun but honestly, I cannot in all good conscience not use the brain I have though not the best, its all I have.

[charlie]

122. Well, there's an answer for that, too

The Jews' "chosen-ness" means that they're the appointed emissaries, a charge the rest of us aren't burdened with. No better, just beholden to a higher standard.

Or something like that. Apologetics gets complicated pretty quick.

[AuntPatsy]

130. Can you point me to the passage in the bible that says that very thing?

It would be much appreciated...

[charlie]

134. No, sorry

I can't make the Biblical argument. It's just an interpretation I hear often enough. There are posts here that have explained it, maybe I can find one of those.

[AuntPatsy]

137. I have read the bible a few times, different versions, I just don't recall that

particular explanation though I could be wrong, I don't have one of those memory chips that record easily and play back just as easily ;-) I wish I did.

[charlie]

140. I've read it myself

But as an atheist who thought he oughta read it at least once. It was arduous and I don't have the retention that someone who finds meaning in the thing would have.

Here's a post about Jews and being "God's chosen":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=143561&mesg_id=143650

[AuntPatsy]

141. Lol, it does take time but it can be rather interesting when you view

it in a more historical content in that so many of the stories from the OT were actually stolen and rewritten from what a people some would have called pagans, what I find wrong of some people is to take it all in as literal nonfiction, the very fact that the words of Jesus whom I believe existed by the way was written over seventy years or so after his death leaves me with far too many questions..

I mean seriously, how can one recall such specifics?

My grandmother firmly believed that the twelve apostles continue to walk amongst us, wether they be male or female it didn't matter and would until the end of time...she was also a firm fan of Nostradumus who if you ask me is a pretty opposite of what Jesus taught...so go figure...she was a good woman though, I think that is all that matters...

I know the Jewish people are God's chosen people, but I don't believe that anywhere in the bibles I have read that states that they are nothing more then emmissionaries...

[spoony]

169. Your grasp on theology

like so many others here, leaves me wondering how it is you pass any judgement on religion, knowing so little about it.

"yet don't believe it when it is written that the Jewish people are only God's children, the rest are infidels"

Mat 28:19, words of Jesus: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

It's so ridiculously obvious that God is interested in all peoples that I needn't bother going further, but I have numerous similar passages from the OT and NT talking about "all nations".

In any case, this thread is not about theology, it is about tolerance.

[Bluerthanblue]

160. why does what some other people hold dear bother you so much??

Why do you feel such a burning desire to destroy with your 'logic' and sarcasm, what others find meaning in?

Is Perky saying you have to CONFORM to their perspective or you are somehow "stupid"? "lying to yourself"? "in denial"?

Methinks thou doest protest too much.

intolerance is a narrow and crowded dead end road-

Embrace your own beliefs- leave others free to embrace theirs- without ridicule, mockery or disdain.
You are not a threat to my own spiritual beliefs- but your attitude is just as offensive and self-righteous- as that of some overbearing "fundementalist christians"

I don't have to steal your joy in order to have my own-
can we not agree to live together in peace?

blu

(duh, edited to correct spelling of Perky's name)

[Goblinmonger]

201. If people would keep their dearly held beliefs to themdamnselves

I would never say a word about them. I promise.

Why does it bother me? Because the asshats that believe in creation think that it should be taught in science class. They want to completely ignore all those pesky facts and teach the mythology of their religion as if it were on an equal par with actual scientific factual data.

Why does it bother me? Because many people of faith are doing everything they can to turn this country into a theocracy and ignore the secular purpose of our government. And I'm not just talking about fundie asshats. Look at Obama's speech where he talks about religion and tell me that it doesn't strike you as a speech that goes against what Madison intended when he wrote the Constitution.

Why does it bother me? Because we live in a country where even the slightest mention of religion being kinda shitty gets a response about me "protesting" too much. Do you really mean that? Do you say that to the anti-war protesters? The choice protesters? What types of protest are OK with you? Or is it just protesting against religion that puts you on this sanctimonious bent? I can protest against religion and it doesn't mean that I am somehow a closet theist just trying deny my belief in a god.

Why does it bother me? Because many theists won't let me live in peace. Read the U of Minn study about how much people in society hate atheists and tell me that it isn't a problem.

[Bluerthanblue]

210. you seem to be blinded by your own

frustration.

Allowing someone to embrace their faith- isn't any of the things you go on to rage about- I can hold the spiritual beliefs i do- and not be threatened in the least by what is taught in public schools even if it clearly contradicts what i personally believe to be true- because what i CHOOSE to accept as my spiritual faith doesn't have concrete, factual evidence to support it- otherwise it would be FACT- not 'faith'.

As for creationism, i have no problem with churches teaching that to those who make the choice to attend their churches. My children are mandated to attend school- and the education there should be as honest and non-partisan as possible- (no easy feat).
Religious instruction doesn't belong in PUBLIC school- I'd argue against, and work to keep it out of my local schools if it were an issue- If religion is addressed as a subject on its own- then it should encompass all the 'belief systems' including Pagan and 'science based only'.

Do you hold JFK in a position of honor? Look back at almost ANY of his speeches, and you may be as dumbfounded as I was to discover the blatant references to religion and 'GOD' in specific that fill them-

If Obama feels the urge to speak about his 'beliefs' PROVIDED he DOESN'T invoke actions which incite violence, (the OT laws- for example) or label those who do not share his perspective as 'mentally ill', 'mentally deficient', 'deluded asshats' or some kind of universally applied negative slur- based SOLELY on the fact that they don't 'agree' with him- Which is what seems to be happening here- why shouldn't he?? Should he "hide" this part of himself because it may make others uncomfortable-??? At what point does being sensitive to others- cripple individual freedoms??.

Why do 'we' have to step into the same kind of bigoted, petty mud-slinging orgy when confronting those who hold beliefs that may overlap with some who use the banner of 'religion' to promote hate, division, misogyny, prejudice, murder, discrimination and abuse??

In answer to your "protest too much" question:

NO- I don't say that WE who write, phone, march, stand vigil, contribute financially and physically to the cause of ending war - "protest too much" ! There ARE tactics that we could use that would negate the cause for which we labor- which is what I was addressing when I said "protest too much"-

In your desire to not be 'judged' as "less than" by ANYONE simply because you do not share their 'religious beliefs' (which is a VERY REASONABLE desire) - you 'step in it' when you choose the offensive (in both senses of the word) tactic of doing to others, the same thing you ask not to have done to you-

This is sounding like the "what is the meaning of is- " or "we don't torture"... mess- but I believe you understand what I'm trying to say- I hope you do-

I am not your enemy- and you aren't mine- Pre- JUDGING, and discounting- negating the worth of someone based on anything other than their own specific actions or stated beliefs is the enemy of everyone- across all political, social, governmental, ethnic, etc.. boundaries.


peace,
blu-

We can't control how people feel- we can confront them about the things they choose to do- and encourage them to question their choices, especially when those choices cause harm- Posts bashing atheists every bit as offensive and wrong as I believe this one to be. ie. "Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity" as one of my sons likes to quote-

[spoony]

168. Ah, tolerance. Where are those terribly earnest

people who have never seen an insulting post in this thread?

[Goblinmonger]

200. So it is now insulting

to point out a logical inconsistency in someone's argument? This person makes claims about the bible and when I show that the claim is nonsensical, I'm somehow intolerant? Please explain. The OP wants to just ignore the OT of the bible because it is only for a specific group of people. My point was just that that same document claims that that specific group of people are the chosen and not the group that the OP belongs to who wants to disregard the OT. I really don't see how that is intolerant.

[AuntPatsy]

280. That is not intolerant, it is based in reality. Sometimes reality can

scare people because it can obviously make them question their faith and that in itself is supposed to be seen as a sin...

I can understand how that man from Puerto Rico has amassed so many followers that claims to be Jesus, God and even Satan, in his preachings there is no sin because he says so, it's pretty obvious that if one realizes how impossible it is to live without supposed sin and might have to face the hounds of hell for eternity that they can find such preaching where no hell is waiting for them regardless of what they do to be more endearing....

Over a Million followers world wide already, tells you alot how easy it is to gain support if you tell people what they want to hear...

[AuntPatsy]

117. As both, suffice it to say I was raised in a very relgious enviroment

but not in the sense where it was rapid, it was open and caring, not judgemental.

[AuntPatsy]

67. See thats a problem in that you say others don't understand the fundemtals

of christianity, the problem is, many different denominations call themselves christians though they might go by baptist etc, how are you so sure that how some people interpet bible passages is completely wrong from the way that you are taught to interpet them? Do you not see how intolerant that is to other so called christians?

[Perky]

77. Judgement begins in the House.

Not with those who do not believe. They seek to imposed their views on the unchurched. Politcs has replaced honest, genuine proselytizing or even just good deeds.

[AuntPatsy]

88. I'm not sure I understand what your trying to say? Who is they?

I want to add that I admire you for standing up for what you believe in in answering the thread that you begun, I have no desire to make fun of your beliefs at all you know, I simply don't feel that christianity is being persecuted at all...

I find you rather fascinating in your steadfastness and yet wonder what it is your not saying but obviously wish you could...and that worries me a bit.

[Perky]

98. They are the Fundamentalist/Dominionist crowd.

They feign belief in Jesus, but work precisely at odds against what He proclaims: The Kingdom of God is not political power or imposing of belief systems through law on a culture.


They think morality is the same as revival.


The re proud rather than filled with Christ-like humility.


THey are the Antithesis if the Sermon on the mount.
Thety would rather petiton than pray and when they do pray they pray on the street corner so that they might be seen.

Theypreach fear and division shamelessly to raise money so they can be beesn as powerful.


I d not begrudghe them there right to believe in their goals. Their tactics are just about as Christ-less as could be.

Jesus railed against this throughout the Gospels. It does not invalidate the message of Christ, it just completely and utterly ignores it.

a

[AuntPatsy]

129. do you consider yourself a disciple of Jesus? And how well do you

follow the commandments found in the OLD Testament? And do you even go by the commandments since they are from the Old Testament?

I agree with you by the way of your interpetation of fundies, they drive me just as nuts, so unlike what I honestly believe Christ like to be considering he did speak out against all that you just stated they do..and yet swear they live by the present day bible..amazing..

[Perky]

215. Well I am a bit of an odd bird in my theology

I think The OT was written by Jews/for Jews and generally believe it was divinely inspired. I think the OT points to Christ. I think Christians are called to be observant of the Law, but only as they are empowered by Christ to do so. The NT is pretty emphatic in that you can't fulfill the law without Jesus.

But here is the thing. It is foolishness...It is heresy... for Christians to demand of the world that they follow the commandments or the law without the ilummination provided by Christ. I base that both on the notion that the law was given to the chosen people specifically so that they might enjoy the benefits of the "land of promise" and because were the law sufficient there would bne no need for Christ.

I may differ from many DUers on abortion and homosexual behavior, but two things: Christ never pronoununced judgement on non-believers and it unreasonable to hold non-believers to account (or impose Christian dogma on them)for that which they aee not yet accountable. My only call is to lead by humble example and when the occasion arises preach the gospel. (something, btw that I would never do on DU). It certainly is not my place to tell people how they should think about this or that hot-button issue.

My religious motivations for being a democrat are based on many things mostly centered on justice and poverty issues and the belief that we are called to serve each other before we serve ourselves.

[AuntPatsy]

283. Interesting, if you are to take the NT as being more revelent than the OT

his ire did seem to be more directed at the hypocrisy of those that pretend to believe verses those that didn't but his message did say that one could not get to Heaven except by believing in him, would you not agree that that in itself was in some way making a stand that if one didn't believe they would be having to face what is written in Revelation? A bit of a contradiction, my question though was if you saw yourself as some kind of disciple of Jesus?

In my mind, you cannot ignore the teachings of one by pretending the other is more factual without in some way leaving it open that such could be seen as others reversed...

If you are too pretty much ignore the teachings of the OT's message as not being the same as the NT then why you feel that both the old and new are put together?

I understand and appreciate that you choose to present your faith by your own actions only without demanding others follow suit, but for myself, I find too much hypocrisy in most religions as they seem to pick and choose the passages which best represent how they wish to live their lives.

What is wrong with simply trying to live your life by being the best person you can be, you need no religious doctrine in your life to be a good person, at least that is how I see it having seen the way people live their lives, what I mean is simply because one proclaims themselves to be a christian does not in my mind make them worthy of someone I would like to share my life with, it is not a good way to ensure the morals of someone.

[JVS]

133. saying "Religious belief is by its very nature intolerant" is intolerant

I have plenty of religious beliefs, but they only become intolerant if I decide to stop tolerating those people who disagree. I don't much care what others believe. In fact, the people about whose beliefs I care most are those within the same religion, lest they fuck up the faith. As far as what you believe, I am perfectly capable of tolerating it because I don't care what it is.

[AuntPatsy]

138. ;-) Interesting, I say that line because I honestly believe most to

follow a very similar pattern so it is easier than pinpointing any one religion, no offense meant here by me when using that term, but I need to because they are very closely aligned, all of them in some way or other.

[mmonk]

35. Nor more.

[Bluebear]

40. So, to what 'persecution' do we owe today's thread to? :)

[Perky]

45. none whatseover

:)

[AuntPatsy]

73. You accused people of scorning your beliefs in the op?

"You do not have to agree with them on every jot and tittle, but if they vote with you because of their beliefs (whatever they may be) doesn't it make more sense to embrace them rather than scorn them?"

[Perky]

yes I did.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=837905&mesg_id=837905

when folks say that 60% of americans are "ass hats" because they beleive in the Creation I would say that is scorn.

[Solon]

97. So Ignorance is supposed to be coddled?

Where would you draw the line, at those who believe in a Geocentric Universe, how about a Flat Earth? There are still believers in that, even today, are they to be treated with kid gloves simply because its a belief based on some texts in the Bible?

See, that's the key difference, if someone came up to me and said the stars are embedded in the Firmament and are not other suns, and then pointed to his Bible to support this claim, I would call him a dumbass. Scorn is all such beliefs deserve, mainly because they have been so throughly disproven.

[Perky]

109. No but if we call them all bufoons

should we expect their votees?

I am talking pragmatically here. I just saying If 30% of Dms believe in Creation (I don't by the way) why go out of you way to tell them that they are stupid?

[Solon]

113. I wouldn't go out of my way to call them stupid unless they try to change the curriculum...

in public schools, or are just very loud in their opinions. If I run across one, and s/he mentions that they believe in Creationism, I will call them stupid, for I surely wouldn't agree with them!

[Perky]

120. My tension witgh Creationsism is that

what it really is about is relevance. ANd it is extemely short-sided Why would you possibly want secular teachers teaching your kids the Biblical meme? They can barely teach istory or math. It is an abrogation of parental responsibility and the height of hypocisy to score points when the Call of Christ is to be humble and meek.

[Solon]

139. I went to a Catholic school, at least for elementary and middle school...

as such, I learned about Evolution through natural selection in my science class, with no mention of any divine being. Then I went down the hall and learned about Religion. Oddly enough, my Religion class wasn't JUST Catholicism, but also many other religions as well. In fact, on of the girls in my class wasn't a Christian at all, she was a member of the Native American Church, and she actually gave a presentation in Religion class on her beliefs and such. I confess that I don't remember much of her presentation, at the time I was more concerned about looks, just hitting puberty at the time, and she was cute. :)

I will say that my Religion class did emphasize Catholicism, and treated the creation story in Genesis as just that, a story, with an allegory or metaphor thrown in here and there, but that's about it. To be frank, it wasn't until College that I met my first, honest to Gods, creationist, and he was in for a Business degree, which didn't surprise me. But, when he stated that the Earth was only about 6,000 years old or so, I looked at him as if he sprouted two heads.

At the time, I was a seeker, I guess you could put it that way, and so I researched all religions, when I could. I studied the Bible, Koran, Vedas, The Four Noble Truths, even the pagan religions, like Hellenistic/Greco-Roman, Norse, etc. By the way, if you want to read a creation story, this is the Völuspá, the creation story of old Norse paganism.

I found my religion now, I'm Wiccan, oddly enough, we don't have a creation story at all, a few tried to create one, but I feel it isn't needed. The Universe just IS, and perhaps the creation of it is simply unknowable, of course, if M-Theory pans out, maybe we were created by some 11th dimensional beings, who knows, it certainly possible. :)

To give a general consensus, since there is no agreed upon creation story, we generally rely on science, to figure out the creation of the physical universe. So evolution, abiogenesis, the Big Bang, all that fits in rather nicely with my religious beliefs, I figure that the Gods played dice with the Universe, and ended up rolling snake eyes.

[AuntPatsy]

143. Nice story ;-)

[AuntPatsy]

136. Yes, they have my vote? i don't see a problem, I was raised to believe

in the creation of mankind, do I question it's validity, of course I do, I am no longer a child, but still, I never felt stupid when the scienitists posed their answer, I think there is much we don't know, I don't think they know it all, nor do I period regardless of what my teachers taught me, I don't see the harm in keeping an open mind, in doing so I feel that I become less judgemental you know, I always go back to the movie "Seventh Sign" where this young soon to be Rabbi asks a Catholic priest whether he believes in what the Christians believe and whom really is right..

The priest smiles and says to the young man, who really knows, perhaps it is the hari Krishnas who were right all along..good answer, we don't really know, nothing wrong with faith perky, but I don't need complete blind faith in what MAN wrote down for others to read to be fact in order to feel safe or feel that I am a halfway decent person...

I have many faults, I just try to do the best I can, with whom I am and what my travels have taught me..

[spoony]

171. Flath earth belief is largely a myth

http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

It is furthered by people like yourself who seek to minimize and diminish your opponents.

[muriel_volestrangler]

181. And yet there are a few people who still claim to believe in a flat earth

such as http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum//

And people published books on it in the 19th, and even 20th, century - such as The Earth is not a Planet. Proved from Scripture, Reason, and Fact.

More than that, a stationary earth is seriously advocated here: http://www.fixedearth.com/ . And 2 state senators (Republicans, of course) lent their names to the support of this crap (which is also anti-semitic, by the way), because they or their staff saw "evolution is wrong" on it, and leapt on it as if it was a legitimate argument. Ridicule and scorn is an acceptable tactic against such claims - but in many ways the arguments against a six day creation are much more obvious than those against a stationary earth.

[spoony]

194. That shows nothing except that

even those with poor thinking skills can learn basic html. I was aware of them before, however, and I am also aware that peole enjoy pointing to them as if they represented even most creationists, much less most religious people. Applying extremist positions to a broader population is the domain of hucksters and bumblers.

[Solon]

197. Exactly! "Poor thinking skills" is the problem....

In addition, I DIDN'T say they REPRESENTED most creationists, just that creationists are in the same level of denial as the flat or fixed Earthers.

[trotsky]

203. Hey! You've just horribly insulted a class of religious believers!

How DARE you, sir! How VERY DARE you!

[muriel_volestrangler]

205. Hey, if the starter of the thread can do it ...

see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=838361&mesg_id=845123

[spoony]

231. Strawman ahoy, mon capitan

There is a (fixed) world of difference between saying that a small minority of people demonstrate a lack of critical thinking and the invective-filled rants against ALL religious people.

Of course, I had the above reply ready before I posted the first one, since you are all terribly predictable.

You may now insert the similarly trite "how Christian of you" snark.

[trotsky]

238. Point me to the post containing an...

"invective-filled rant against ALL religious people."

[spoony]

243. I can point you to many

and yet it would then be deleted for violating the rules. I am always amused by the people who claim they have never seen such an animal before and demand I violate DU's policies to show you how DU's policies are violated. Lol.

[trotsky]

245. You're missing the point.

Such a post would be deleted if it's against the rules (i.e., attacking the believer rather than the belief).

So you're complaining about things that no longer exist, thanks to effective management of this site.

Thanks for playing!

On edit: You could always PM me those nasty posts - that won't violate the rules, dear spoony! Time to put your money where your mouth is.

[spoony]

248. No, there are plenty that are still there

although I do grant that many of the most egregious have been removed. That doesn't mean they don't sit there for hours and days, and some never are removed.

Nor does removal make the behaviour less abhorrent, but it seems like you are admitting that there's enough of a problem that admin's have to routinely scrub out the most offensive aspects, so thank YOU for playing.

[trotsky]

252. One post would be enough of a problem.

I'm still waiting on that PM so you can provide some evidence to back up your claims.

*chirp* *chirp* *chirp*

I can send you one a theist made, that still exists to this day, if you're interested.

[spoony]

254. You'll be waiting forever for that PM, because I

have learnt that taking a public debate private only opens up lots of "you said no you said" bickering potential that no one reading this can cross-check unless the PMs are posted, which negates the point.

And I'm not going to defend anyone slamming atheists with the kinds of insults I'm talking about directed at theists. My wish is that both sides would tolerate and not antagonise each other. If religion was never brought up on DU again it'd be grand, afaic.

[trotsky]

256. LOLOL

You're funny, spoony.

Let me know when you want to work on that tolerance in yourself.

[spoony]

276. To learn something, one generally goes to someone

who already knows it, soooo I don't think anyone will be knocking on your door asking for tolerance lessons. Or debate lessons, frankly.

[trotsky]

278. Not when your idea of "debate"

is to come up with a juvenile insult instead of answering questions, I guess.

The love and peace of Jesus be with you, spoony. You clearly need it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

204. Can learn basic html ... and influence Republican politicians (n/t)

[Goblinmonger]

208. Tolerance, spoony, tolerance.

Practice what you preach so loudly, my brother. Why are their beliefs somehow less than yours? Oh, wait, I answered my own question: they are less because they aren't your beliefs. If we have to grab our ankles so that we get the creationist vote, I don't see a fuck lot of difference between creationism and flat earth, fixed earth, or other anti-scientific jibberjabber.

But I will follow your lead. Please forward me the list of those beliefs that I can make fun of and those that I can't since you seem to be the arbitor of that sort of thing.

[spoony]

229. Ah, but look at the way I said it

versus the way your...ilk...does. Also look at my above prepared reply.

[Goblinmonger]

232. So now it is just an issue

of tone and not of tolerance. How many times are you going to redraw that line in the sand so that you aren't on what you perceive to be the "wrong" side?

on edit: if by my "ilk" you mean trotsky, evoman, and the others, I consider myself in very good company.

[spoony]

233. Tolerance is IN THE TONE

Who ever said tolerance means you can't call someone wrong? No one here, that's for sure. What it means is that you don't have to call them inbred, foolish, insane, etc.

If you want to say, as I did, that someone has poor critical thinking skills, by all means do so. You won't, of course, because you prefer terms that allow you to feel more superior and L33t and shit.

[Goblinmonger]

244. It's 1337, by the way

Sorry, couldn't resist. What if they are inbred? Can I call them that then? What if they are ignorant (i.e. creationists)? Is that ok?

[AuntPatsy]

284. Good point.

[AuntPatsy]

132. Hmmm, sorry, but I just dont see where that is offensive?

[sniffa]

269. pffft!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Madspirit]

48. Poor religionists

No one picks on religion. People defend themselves FROM it and then get accused of picking on it. What a crock. This is not a Theocracy. I don't care if someone's beliefs inform their decisions as long as they keep it to themselves. I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT YOUR GOD. We already have a Theocrat as POTUS. How's that working out for you?
Lee

[supernova]

49. And you didn't post this

in response to Skinner's thread?

[Bluebear]

53. Purely coincidence ;)

[supernova]

55. That wink

tells me what I need to know. thanks.

[Perky]

69. no it was in response to this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=837905&mesg_id=837905

[supernova]

79. My original impression

still applies.

[Greyhound]

50. Embrace them, yes. Kow-tow to their prejudices, never.

We are free to believe whatever we wish, the problem is that there ate many that would enforce those beliefs, through the law, upon others.

What's a tittle?

[Pastiche423]

266. 1: A tittle is a point or small sign used as a diacritical mark

in writing or printing.

2: A very small part.

What that has to do w/this discussion, I have no earthly idea.

[Greyhound]

270. It was just an aside to my reply. Thank you for the information. n/t

[Pastiche423]

271. I din't know what is meant either

until I looked it up in a dictionary.

[trotsky]

52. Hmm, what would be a good example of "scorning"?

Maybe standing on the capitol steps saying "One nation, UNDER GOD" with "Onward Christian Soldiers" playing in the background?

While you fret about the poor Christian believers in this country (who RUN both fucking parties, thankyouverymuch), we non-believers are getting the shaft so your poor persecution schtick has gotten WAY OLD.

[More Than A Feeling]

57. Supernaturalism has so much status in this country that the only thing left to complain about

is people failing to be sufficiently awed and happy about that status, and expressing that to believers. Believers today were born too late, and I think some of them are unhappy that they didn't get a chance to bask in that celebration of religion while the getting was good.

[trotsky]

71. "people failing to be sufficiently awed and happy about that status"

Very well put.

[gollygee]

64. Are there posts saying religious people's votes are less valuable?

I must have missed that.

[Goblinmonger]

68. Who is scorning them?

Who has told them to leave the democratic party?

Sometimes I am quite sure you are making stuff up so that you can feel persecuted.

[More Than A Feeling]

74. He's pissed that people make fun of creationists.

He said that this thread is in response to this other one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=837905&mesg_id=837905

[charlie]

75. That's today's excuse, in any case n/t

[Goblinmonger]

78. Well, we do have to realize

that people who believe in creationism are fucking morons. They can still be part of the party, but I'm not going to think they are intelligent as to the origin of life.

[Perky]

83. but why would you insist on telling them they are morons?

It does not strike me as productive to the idea of inclusion if 60% honestly do believe in Creationism.

[Goblinmonger]

89. I'm not telling them that

I don't go out of my way to talk about creationism. I think they are morons and will state as much if the topic comes up. The fact that 60% of people think anything doesn't mean shit to me. Bush got elected, didn't he.

[Solon]

96. So, this has nothing to do with religion...

Now that I know what this thread is really about, I now understand, you are confused. What's funny is that I had a conversation with my Dad about getting the "Walking with Dinosaurs" DVD set for my nephew, and me of course, its an excellent series, narrated by Avery Brooks, Benjamin Sisko to the Star Trek geeks out there, and produced by Discovery and the BBC.

Anyways, my Dad blurts out that he knows a guy at work who doesn't believe in Evolution, now, before you get your feathers ruffled, my Dad is Catholic, goes to church on Easter and Christmas, just like every other Catholic. :) He then says he doesn't understand how a guy who is so smart at CAD drafting, can be so damned stupid, I mean, both my dad and I believe in the concept of deity, even if we differ in details, but even we acknowledge reality. I mean, c'mon, my 2 year old nephew found a fossil in my backyard for crying out loud! Does it all of the sudden not exist or something?

[Perky]

80. I am not pissed. I just want every possible vote to come our way

no matter what path it took to geth there.

[trotsky]

95. How much should we sell out, then?

Should we look the other way over encroachments on reproductive rights, so we can win a few more anti-choice votes?

How about we sign on to another couple of years of Iraq occupation to win some pro-war voters?

"no matter what path it took to geth (sic) there"

In other words, the ends justify the means. That's fucking scary talk, and usually the domain of the right-wing fundies.

[ellacott]

99. Wait, it's selling out to want Christian voters?

Is that what you meant?

[trotsky]

100. The ones that oppose significant planks in the Democratic platform, yes.

I don't particularly feel we should reach out to anti-choice Christians, for example.

[Perky]

102. Even though they might support us on every other issues?

[trotsky]

107. What of abortion, then?

If they want to work within our party to make abortion illegal, how does that serve Democratic goals? How many votes is "worth" that kind of result?

[Perky]

118. Well there is a difference between being pro-life and anti_choice

I am probably a pro-lifer, but I also understand what I undersatnd about free will. I can't impopse my religious conviction or my morality on secular society. That is my real tension with the pro-life-movemewnt. They are very un-Christian in their tactics.

[trotsky]

121. So, do you have an answer?

Is it worth trying to pick up those votes?

[Perky]

127. In a close election... you bet is is.

[trotsky]

128. So then,

you're either advocating lying (telling anti-choicers we'll support their views, then turning our backs on them once elected), or adopting those anti-choice views and working to make abortion illegal.

Which one of those actions is the more Christ-like, Perky?

[Perky]

152. No I am not saying that at all.

Your argument seems to procced from an assumption that they are one-issue voters. The act that they lean democratic ingherently suggersts otherwise.

[trotsky]

162. I guarantee you there are thousands, maybe milllions...

of people who would vote Democratic if not for our party's pro-choice stance. The single-issue voter is real, and your unwillingness to consider them reveals much.

[Perky]

180. but I do consider them and all pro-choicers

Ultimately my viw is that the resolution of the abortion debate comes via individual spiritual awakening; That is something that the fundies seem to ignore in their rush to judgemnt and their use of the law and the mgaphone... (fact that make them heretics in my view( and the left who has trouble getting their hands around. I can not force my religiousy informed view down anyones throat any more than Jesus would.

Jesus would prefer to stand with non-believers and "sinners" than he would with heretics and pharisees. and on that basis I will stand with those I disgree with on this issue rather than endorse the political machinations of the proud and the arrogant zealots on the right.

[trotsky]

190. Good luck with that spiritual awakening thing.

Check out a few history books when you get a chance and find out what usually happens when one religious group tries to convince another their religious opinions are wrong, mmmkay?

[AuntPatsy]

142. I like your answer and I have no problem with your belief as it doesn't

force itself on to others...

[ellacott]

104. You have Pro-Choice Republicans and the Log Cabin Republicans

They still are part of the Republican party. There are Pro life liberals who don't believe in gay marriage. We are not a monolith and it shouldn't be a prerequisite. We will never agree on everything, not even the big issues.

[trotsky]

108. Never said we had to agree on everything.

I am questioning the OP as to just how much we should compromise Democratic principles to attract more votes. Where is the line drawn?

[Perky]

101. Of course not.

I have no tension at all with people going after the fundies for their political views.

Is there not a balance between scorning the politics born of religion and the religion itself, If thet same religion can lead religionist to a different conclusion about politics you can agree with.

In terms of pure politics. there may be very little we disagree, but if I reach those same conclusions based in part or in large measure based on my religion can't you draw a conclusion that its not religion that is the problem...its what people do with it?

[ellacott]

111. Great response n/t

[trotsky]

116. No, I can't draw that conclusion.

If we simply let conclusions be reached by what one thinks their religion says, what do we do when religions disagree? Who is right, and who is wrong? Whose religion takes precedence?

You support Obama - go read what he says. You can have your own personal religious reasons for your policy stances, but you had better damn well have some secular reasoning to support it because otherwise it's a fight over whose god has the bigger penis.

[Perky]

124. I completely agree

except for the last part.

[AuntPatsy]

145. As crude as you put it, I have to agree that it comes down to that sad as it is.

[AuntPatsy]

144. Can you understand why some people get downright angry about

those talking about personal religion? Can you not agree that much persecution and outright theft and murder that still continues to this day has been done in the name of a religion that in the same breath is preached being "Love they Neighbor"?

Like it or not, most people feel that all religious demonations basically have the same rules, most do you know, and it is whether they admit it or not a message of not tolerating the so called infidel, pretty much saying if you can't change him or her they are "Hell" bound..like it or not, that is considered a slur to many..

I don't believe in the rapture, it was made up by some nutjob in the late eighteen hundreds, why people go with it still today makes me shake my head....he was proven wrong how many times???

It is just not fundies who secretly or not believe they themselves will go to heaven while those non believes go in the other direction..I don't believe that....I don't even believe in a hell persay, this is our hell, whether or not you personaly live an stress free life, with today's technology you cannot ignore that others do not, how one can justify the suffering of so many others to be some kind of grand scheme that God is allowing to continue for far too long nauseates me if you want to know the truth...that is horrific thinking...

Whether or not I still believe all I was taught is obviously questionable, I just don't see a God nor a Jesus who is supposed to be our parents persay sitting back watching his children suffer so, i don't agree with you that we are separate in that we are forced to face different laws..it wouldnt be fair nor moral, would you as a parent stand idly by and watch your children suffer in agonizing death scenerios or near death ones and not step in to stop it???

[Bluerthanblue]

159. the line you are drawing-

the line that says a person has to conform to some personal list of " absolutes " is as repugnant to me as when right wing fundamentalists do the same.

I don't agree 100% with anyone on anything- To require that, or to dismiss another's value as a fellow human, because they part company with your agenda- is bigoted, prejudiced and flat out foolish.

Many people of faith are among those who work and fight to ensure that our reproductive rights are not encroached upon. And many are found among those who dedicate their lives to fighting poverty, greed, homelessness, who work for civil rights for ALL, into WORKING to improve the the world and plant hope for a better tomorrow.

There is no "litmus test" which says in order to live a compassionate life- in order to be a "good citizen of the world" one must embrace EITHER religion or atheism- and there shouldn't be.

The OP said NOTHING about compromising on your own personal beliefs- Because they have 'spiritual beliefs' that you don't share they automatically are "the enemy"?

Atheistic bigotry and prejudice is no less hate-FILLED and destructive as the bigotry and prejudice of Religious fundamentalism-

Is this not "the big tent"???? If we are simply yin to the Republic yang, we might as well hang it up-

may we learn to live in peace,
blu

[trotsky]

161. OK, I think you are way off base in this reply.

I am not suggesting someone must agree with an agenda 100% - far from it, and I highly resent your misrepresentation of my views.

What I am asking is, just how much are we supposed to compromise core Democratic principles to pick up some extra votes? Give up union protections so we can win some corporate fatcats? Screw affordable healthcare so we can get some HMO management votes?

At what point are we no longer a party that represents something?

Your wild and unsupported and insulting accusations of bigotry aside, please tell me just how many issues on which one can depart from the Democratic Party yet still be considered a Democrat. Maybe if you actually put forth a position instead of insults, I could take you seriously.

[Bluerthanblue]

163. I'm sorry you feel resentment- I

was responding to your post- your words:

." How much should we sell out, then?

Should we look the other way over encroachments on reproductive rights, so we can win a few more anti-choice votes?

How about we sign on to another couple of years of Iraq occupation to win some pro-war voters?

"no matter what path it took to geth (sic) there"

In other words, the ends justify the means. That's fucking scary talk, and usually the domain of the right-wing fundies."

Could you please show me where there was ANY mention of compromising any core Democratic principals?

here is Perky's OP-

"Just because someone has religious beliefs does not make their vote any less valuable
to a democratic majority either in politics generally or in an legislative body or executive office.

You do not have to agree with them on every jot and tittle, but if they vote with you because of their beliefs (whatever they may be) doesn't it make more sense to embrace them rather than scorn them?"

Perky clearly stated that the people they were talking about were people who "VOTE WITH" *us*- Contrary to what some people would have one think- having religious beliefs does NOT automatically disqualify someone from holding Democratic core principles VERY dear-

I'm saddened and frustrated by the bigotry that rears its ugly head here when 'religious faith' is mentioned. I find it UGLY and worth confronting regardless of what side it comes from. I don't approve of people shoving their 'faith' down others throats- and I also don't approve of people ridiculing someone because they embrace a "religious faith" that others may not.

I am confused as to what you are addressing in your post- What 'compromise' would be required in order to allow others to hold varying beliefs while 'voting with you'? And why would being accepting of varying belief systems while sharing a common political bond be "fucking scary"-???

I HONESTLY did not mean to insult you. And I am sorry that i did.

peace,
blu

[trotsky]

188. My post was no longer directly addressing the OP...

but the subthread. Perky was quite clearly saying we should make overtures to people who may disagree with Democrats on some significant issues. I am not seeking to exclude people with religious beliefs, which are the words you seemingly keep trying to cram in my mouth - or the mouth of the mythical believer-bashing DUer.

*I'm* saddened and frustrated that when comments about religion that are even just slightly less than gushing are posted on DU, some people raise cries of "bigotry" and try to scare non-believers into thinking that we'll chase away all these valuable Christian voters. Posts that ridicule are against the rules. Alert on them, and they'll be deleted. But you can't think that criticism of religious beliefs in general, or of Christianity in particular, is always bad.

My point is, these people who might be "scared" away from Democrats simply because of comments on an anonymous Internet message board wouldn't be voting for us anyway because of some major differences on core principles. And to compromise on some of those principles - abortion, union rights, healthcare, etc. - takes us away from being Democrats. Do you disagree?

To reiterate, my answer to your question of:

What 'compromise' would be required in order to allow others to hold varying beliefs while 'voting with you'?

Is none because this isn't a religious belief issue. It's about stances on Democratic positions and just how much we should sell those out to win votes.

[Bluerthanblue]

196. can we at least be honest with each other??? look at your post

as it lies in this thread-
You wrote it LONG before any of the other stuff came in about what compromises came in- Your over the top ASSUMPTION came before any mention of compromising on the issue of abortion. I personally would not compromise my stand on abortion- I believe that abortion should be LEGAL and safe in the US- In my own heart and mind, I could not envision anything that would lead me to choose this option (and I've considered this issue intimately) HOWEVER to criminalize this procedure is something I will personally fight AGAINST.

There are a few important issues that i've had to set aside when casting my vote for our candidate- I oppose war and militarism- I believe no one should ever go homeless, be without health care, or food. Our believe our focus on DEFENSE is responsible for much of the suffering, social decay and violence that we experience. We are encouraged to be insatiable consumers with little attention given to what the true 'cost' of this addiction is, not only to us as people but to the world at large.

I believe personal freedom also brings with it a measure of social responsibility- Not many high profile candidates embrace or embody these particular ideas- so,-- like we all do to some degree,-- i have to choose the candidate who comes closest to what i consider the most critical issues.

I find bigotry- (and sorry, contrary to the denial, there IS a vocal minority here who speak with hatred, prejudice and intolerance when addressing religion in any form) to be offensive and destructive. I can't ignore this because those who dish it out are fellow Dem's- We shouldn't have to be 'yin' to the 'yang' when being either extreme is negative.

I began my reply to your initial post while getting supper for my family- I posted it without going back and catching up on all the other threads- Your comment - the one I initially responded to stood alone before the sub-thread about 'choice'- however as i said above, i personaly won't compromise my stand on keeping abortions safe and legal.

I still don't understand how being tolerant of a fellow Dem's religious beliefs... no, stuff that 'tolerance' crap.... how exactly does ALLOWING a fellow dem to hold a spiritual belief, or NOT hold one without having to face un-warranted criticism, judgment or ridicule- force me to compromise ANYTHING i personally hold dear, and choose to champion.

peace,
blu

[trotsky]

199. I'm really not even sure who you're arguing with here.

how exactly does ALLOWING a fellow dem to hold a spiritual belief, or NOT hold one without having to face un-warranted criticism, judgment or ridicule- force me to compromise ANYTHING i personally hold dear, and choose to champion.

I don't hold the position you're attacking. Please find someone who does, and argue with them. Thanks!

[Bluerthanblue]

212. Your post - the one I addressed initially-

is the one that led me to believe you held pre-concieved notions about the 'value' of a fellow Dem based solely on the statement that they held a "religious belief"-

If you'll read the ORIGINAL POST- and follow the threads, it's pretty obvious.

If you DON'T hold this position- then we aren't in disagreement.

peace,
blu

[trotsky]

214. You have succeeded in confusing the crap out of me.

Here's my post that you initially responded to:

95. How much should we sell out, then?

Should we look the other way over encroachments on reproductive rights, so we can win a few more anti-choice votes?

How about we sign on to another couple of years of Iraq occupation to win some pro-war voters?

"no matter what path it took to geth (sic) there"

In other words, the ends justify the means. That's fucking scary talk, and usually the domain of the right-wing fundies.

This was in response to Perky's comment of "I just want every possible vote to come our way no matter what path it took to geth (sic) there."

"No matter what path it took to geth (sic) there." That particular phrase scared me, because it basically means "the ends justify the means." "No matter what path" clearly implies compromising ANYTHING just to pick up votes from someone who may or may not share our positions as Democrats. But they are a Christian, which is apparently good enough for Perky.

So I would suggest to you your same advice: read the original post, and Perky's followup, and then my post above, and tell me just how badly you have misrepresented me and my position. I have never said anything about the "value" of a fellow Democrat being less because of their religious beliefs, and I am pissed off at you insinuating otherwise.

[Bluerthanblue]

221. see my "in specific" post-

you don't like it when you feel you have been unfairly characterized, and I don't blame you-

I also don't believe that a 'vote' is worth selling out ones 'soul' for- and I've said that repeatedly to you-

I responded to your specific words- Once a vote "is there" there isn't any 'compromise' needed- I don't understand the direction the thread took after the initial comment- - the OP- but it was enough to bring in instantly negative comments based SOLELY on one word- "religious"- if that isn't pre- judging what is????

There are many, many spiritual paths- Within these groups are individuals I have a great deal of respect for- and some with people who behave in ways that are distructive and hate-filled but if I make the mistake of condemning the 'group' for the actions of individuals, how am I any different??

I am sorry that I have made you angry. It wasn't my intention.-
I sincerly wish you peace
blu

[Bluerthanblue]

216. in specific-

your post was written before the "sub-thread"-

Mon May-07-07 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #80
95. How much should we sell out, then?

And yet, you jumped to the conclusion that because someone was 'religious' they'd somehow want to end legal abortions-???

And I'm not concerned with "scaring away " anyone based on the COMMENTS on this board- I'm more concerned with the fact that people I choose to join together with feel justified in using the same kind of un-just tactics to belittle those who don't share their POV as those I try and work to stop-

Maybe you have already run around this topic on other threads, and carried your issue here- but when I read your post- and the notion of putting aside the issue of keeping abortion a safe legal procedure- when NO MENTION had even yet been made- it struck me as pretty odd-

There ARE those who unfairly bash others based solely on "religion" here.- you can deny it all you like that won't bring change- Bigotry IS- ugly and unacceptable, expecially when it is a burden we discover we've been carrying ourselves-

be free- be yourself-

peace,
blu

[trotsky]

218. I never said that post addressed abortion.

It specifically addressed Perky's claim of needing to get votes no matter what the cost. I later brought up abortion as a specific example.

There ARE those who unfairly bash others based solely on "religion" here.- you can deny it all you like that won't bring change- Bigotry IS- ugly and unacceptable, expecially when it is a burden we discover we've been carrying ourselves

Please note that I have never denied this. You're continuing your nasty habit of putting words in my mouth. I am telling you that when you see this unfair bashing, alert on it. If the comment is a personal attack, it will get deleted.

Of course I have seen plenty of bashing of non-belief on here too, but that's not really the point, is it?

[Bluerthanblue]

223. can we

call a truce?-

I will say again, I'm not your enemy- and I am sorry to have offended you-

We are on the same page I believe- I'll try not to dot your i's - will you try not to cross my t's?

[trotsky]

228. A truce?

After you repeatedly put words in my mouth and argued against the strawman version of me?

You say you're sorry to have offended me, but you show no understanding of what you did. So damn frustrating.

[Perky]

186. Oh C'mon Trotsky

Democratic leaders have been kowtowing to big cats for years, The party has always compropmised with monied interets and watered down liberal idealism. Its the price of the big tent and gaining votes in the muddled middle of the political spectrum. It may not be your cup of tea.., but an honest appraisal of the political landscapeover the last 50 years is that niether congress nor the presidency has ever been as liberal as liberal believe it once was. \

Just saying the idealism is fine. We need people to stick to their guns but the political reality is that we always compromise away idealism for pragmatism.

[trotsky]

189. Sure they have - money is a necessary component of politics these days.

But you're totally avoiding the point. Just how far can you move to the right and still be a Democrat?

[Perky]

211. not an inch

The point is that Pro-lifers may be willing to join democratic ranks on election even though they disgree on religious grounds with the Party's stand on Abortion.
If they are willing to accept the party position
Or are willing to work within the system to attempt move their agenda on that front forwards
Or if they are just fed up with the republican party,

depsite their religious objections

Then it seems to me that the whole of the compromise is on their side.

And as such, if such a person is still religiously motivated to vote democratic, we shoot ourselves in the foot when we heap scorn on their religion.

Or did I misundertand your quuestion "Just how far can you move to the right and still be a Democrat"

[trotsky]

213. Well gee, Perky. With that bit of hand-waving, we're back at square one.

Who is heaping scorn on their religion? Please name the Democratic party leaders, candidates, public figures, and/or liberal political pundits featured on TV, radio, and in newspapers who are delivering this scorn.

I'll be waiting right here. :hi:

[Perky]

217. Umm where did I ever make that assertion?

what did I say in my original post?

[trotsky]

219. So you're back to your recurring unproven assertion, then?

That somehow what a few people say on an anonymous Internet message board is scaring away Christians who OTHERWISE would have voted for Democrats?

Because I say that's bullshit. If it were actual party leaders, candidates, or even just someone who had a regular spot on TV or a column in the newspaper doing this bashing you MIGHT be able to make the claim. But as it is, you have nothing. Just your self-righteousness, which apparently is in unlimited supply.

[Perky]

222. oh gimme a break

Just because someone has religious beliefs does not make their vote any less valuable to a democratic majority either in poltics generally or in an legislative body or executive office.

You do not have to agree with them on every jot and tittle, but if they vote with you because of their beliefs (whatever they may be) doesn't it make more sense to embrace them rather than scorn them?

How is that the leasT bit self-righteous?

The position I take demands nothing of anyone other than to be open-minded to those who are like -minded.

[trotsky]

224. So the basic problem here is just what you consider to be "open-minded"

and who exactly is "like-minded."

No one on DU (at least that I've ever seen) has suggested that a Christian Democrat's vote is worth less because they are a Christian. You kick off with a statement implying such, however.

What deserved exploration was the logical consequences of your statement - what if refraining from any sort of religious comment just isn't enough to win that vote? How much should we bend our principles to meet theirs, and win that vote? According to you - "no matter what path it took to get there".

That's disturbing, and you have naturally backed away from that sentiment with every succeeding post until you're back here at the get-go with nothing but putrid self-righteousness about how the mean old atheists on DU are somehow costing Democrats votes. You have failed to support that belief time and time again, but that doesn't stop you from coming back, rephrasing it, to try yet once more to whine about poor Christians having to read less-than-fawning comments about their religion.

You got a problem with a post? Alert on it. You don't feel the mods and admins are deleting the right ones? Tough shit. It's not your board. I haven't agreed with every action/non-action they've taken either. But I don't need to get up on the soapbox and whine about it on a weekly basis.

[Bluerthanblue]

225. forget the

truce-

I'm out of this manure fest- this is really sad-

I wish you peace-
in every part of your life.



blu

[trotsky]

226. That definitely confirms how sincere I thought you were.

Thank you for removing any doubt.

[Perky]

235. You are leap frogging in your logic

Its fine to bash you for what they believe but we still want your vote?

If refraining from bashing is not enough to get their vote, then we do not get their vote. But why bash when their votes might be available?

You seem to start from the position that the default party of Christian is the GOP, But we got over 30% of the evangelical vote in the last election. If we want to push that to 40% without compromising our values is there any value in mocking what they believe.


I stand fully behind my initial post.

[trotsky]

239. You won't even define what you mean, Perky.

What is "bashing"? When does something cross the line from criticism to bashing? And can you PROVE that even the worst of what has been said on DU has cost us even one single vote?

I'll repeat what I have said numerous times on this thread: if a post bothers you, ALERT ON IT. Your regular whine thread about scaring away Christians is pointless.

[Perky]

257. Of course I can't prove it has cost us a single vote

and I never said that it did. You keep acribing things to me that I never said.
And I never said that I could.

But my original post was in response to this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x837905

and in particular theses three posts.


bowens43 (1000+ posts) Mon May-07-07 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
15. More evidnce that religion is the problem, not the solution.

Response to Original message
16. I'm officially in despair.


It's too late. We are doomed. The loonies are taking over.

Can the 39% educate the 61%? I doubt it.

I hoped to live a comfortable old age without being pursued by evangelical nuts, but it looks like the only way to do that is to cash in my chips and get out of here.


18. 61% of americans are Ass Hats too...

[trotsky]

258. No, of course you can't.

But that's what your threats always indicate. Let's not play this coy game, Perky. What's your point in posting this theme again and again and again? You're basically threatening all those who make any sort of comment about religion that YOU don't like, saying that they will scare away so many Christian votes that we (Democrats) will never win another election. It's the equivalent of threatening to take your toys and go home.

For one thing you were proven completely and utterly wrong in '06 (since I certainly didn't see any letting up of what you think is "bashing"), but let's leave that aside for now.

Can you explain how each of those posts is qualifies as bashing Christians in general, and not just the scientifically ignorant ones that even you disown in your other thread?

Alert, and quit your incessant whining. If the mods don't agree with your definition of bashing, deal with it. Maybe DU isn't for you.

[Perky]

263. ok ok ok "uncle"

I can't prove that they do and I never said that I could. But it is irrational to think that it helps. Calling people who belieive in the Creation story lunatics is mean-spirited and yeah intolerant of people's dearly held belief. Now I would also distinguish here between those who belive in Creation and those who want it taught in the public schools...the problem is that the distinction is not considered relevant

I am not Threatening anyone I just think we can do better at distinguishing groups within Christianity. There are folks on here who will go out of their way on a daily basis to find article which point to Christians who do bad things, with no apparent reason other than to poke fun and start flame wars. So it is ok for them to do that but it not ok for someone to take exception to it?


I never said we will never win another election. Nothing even close to that. I did say that I will take any vote we can get in an election because they are historically very close.. I do not like the notion of the Domocratic Party being the Godless party and I do not like this ioncrrect notion being continuallly reenforced by people who assert that people who believe in Creation are all lunatics are asshats.

'06 in an interesting point and require some thought. Clearly we did better. Still not great...but better.

I generally do not believe in alerting because I believe in Freedom of Speech. I would rather engage and have constructive dialog which is what I think DU is about.


Fundamentally I believe in being fair to all people I feel compelled to defend the faith against ad homenin attacks but have always sought a balanced approach.I am very very careflul to stay away from enything that smacks of proselytizing and I am also careful not to dispargage either individuals or athiests in general because I think that is completelty inappropriate.

No one is forcing anyone to believe as I do. And I have never suggesed that I want people to believe as I do.


To ignore each and every tirade to go unanswered is to surrender, in my opinion to the meme shared by the repukes and a small portion of liberals that this party is the Party that despises the people of God.

I am not saying that Christian are "off limits" I am just suggesting that blasting away with a shotgun is inappropriate.

Should I really just keep my mouth shut and let what goes on here continue with put ever responding?

[trotsky]

264. "it is irrational to think that it helps"

Does bashing Republicans help or hurt us? I think your same logic can be fairly applied there. After all, there are probably a good number people who hold many Democratic ideals, but consider themselves Republicans primarily because their dad was one. The constant bashing of Republicans on here could be driving them away, and certainly we could use their votes, right?

I just think your threads like this are pointless exercises. You start with a hostile tone and unsupported suggestinos - that others are scaring Christians away - and it just goes downhill from there.

I do not like the notion of the Domocratic Party being the Godless party

Could be because it's not true - as witnessed by Christians occupying the VAST, VAST majority of positions within the party and as its candidates. It's a right-wing lie but you're helping give it life by trying to find hostility where it doesn't always exist.

Yes, if you think a post is insulting, alert on it. Freedom of speech doesn't apply on DU - it's a private message board. But do keep in mind that if it doesn't get deleted, do you really think that by starting YET ANOTHER whiny thread about what you perceive as bashing is going to change things?

Here's a helpful hint: engage the person who made the remarks that offended you. When you start another thread like this, no one has any clue what you're referring to, and guess what! They might just feel put on the defensive. Crazy, huh?

[AuntPatsy]

285. I think your right, the compromise seems to be a bit one sided.

[Der Blaue Engel]

123. I don't think the Democratic party loses votes because some people on the Internet think

certain beliefs are stupid.

Honestly, why can't we put this to bed? No one is asking the Dem candidates to stand up and say, "To you Christians out there who believe in a literal, non-evolutionary Creation, I say, you are stupid!" We're simply making remarks on a public board about our personal feelings and beliefs. I don't see the problem.

[AuntPatsy]

146. The problem I see is that people are scare of discussing religion

lately, we shouldnt be, I don't think this thread has gotten overly heated and for that I am grateful, I honestly think that is what is wrong with the world today, and perhaps if we can face this issue that religion is not the end all of all things and that if it strives to ignore it's hypocrisy it can even be a valuable tool for alot of people that have a hard time with life than perhaps the world can get along a bit better....


I think religion is a crucial part of all that is in play today simply because it is so misused and sooooooo misunderstood...if we ignore the issue, it will continue to be misunderstood wouldnt you think?

[Der Blaue Engel]

156. To clarify, I don't see the problem with saying 'I think certain beliefs are stupid'

I'm advocating more people speaking their minds, not ignoring the issue.

[AuntPatsy]

158. I agree, this is a highly viotile issue if you ask me and needs

constant attention, ignoring the dangers of what could happen if left alone is very real, history and present day politics proves such is a fact.

[Forkboy]

86. That seems to be most religions in a nutshell.

Sometimes I am quite sure you are making stuff up so that you can feel persecuted.

[BlooInBloo]

94. Imagine how shitty you'd feel if you had all the worldy power in the world....

... and people STILL laughed at you.

They *thought* that with a hegemony over secular power, the moral authority would naturally follow. Now they're nonplussed to discover the falsity of this assumption. So they're simply trying the straightforward tack: to advocate for BOTH the secular power of the majority AT THE SAME TIME THEY ADVOCATE FOR THE MORAL AUTHORITY OF THE MINORITY.

They're thinking, such as it is, is that lying and inconsistency has never cost them in the past, what do they have to worry about now? The problem is that they're confronting a skeptical audience - not the idiots they're used to. And with a skeptical audience, their lying is directly, immediately, and harshly to their detriment.

But lying is all they have - that's why they depend on the stupidity of their congregations.

So I kind of feel sorry for them. In between laughing-fits.

[AuntPatsy]

147. lol like that last line.

[spoony]

172. You are a prime example

of both intolerance and, from reading enough of your posts, a superiority complex covering for substantial other shortcomings.

[Goblinmonger]

227. Are you trying to say

that AuntPatsy has a tiny penis??????

Aren't you being intolerant of AP? Maybe you'll drive AP away from the Democratic party *GASP*.

[spoony]

234. For one thing,

you have misidentified the poster I was replying to.

Second, what does it say about you that you would jump right to the genitalia. Shortcomings, as I meant them, are personality flaws. And people who constantly hop into a thread with snarky subject lines and empty message bodies, all aimed at belittling others, are usually attempting to posit a superiority over others in an attempt to compensate for those flaws.

[Goblinmonger]

241. It was a joke.

Sorry for making one. Penis jokes are as old as the language. Shakespeare made them. In fact, we just read a couple in Romeo and Juliet with my freshmen today, though I didn't point them out (a couple of the good students got it though).

Plus, I always jump right to the genitalia :wishingforarimshotsmilie:

on edit: yes, you were replying to Bloo. My fault. You were saying BIB has a small penis.

[spoony]

242. I assure you no one will be confusing you

or your humour with the Bard.

[AuntPatsy]

289. I wasn't offended by the way.

[AuntPatsy]

286. I could say the same about you, Ive attempted to keep my tone

light, you entered the fray in a completely different light if you ask me...do I believe myself to know everything? Of course not, thats my whole point,that you fail to see that tells me your left with little else except to get a bit edgy in your replies to not only me but others as well.

[rug]

112. What exactly is a tittle?

[Forkboy]

119. The sound people make when laughing at this thread.

:)

[Bluebear]

153. :)

[ellacott]

126. tittle:

tit·tle (tĭt'l)
n.
A small diacritic mark, such as an accent, vowel mark, or dot over an i.
The tiniest bit; an iota.

[AuntPatsy]

148. nice to know, love the spelling police , they find me often;-) it is cute though

[porphyrian]

125. It doesn't make their vote any more valuable, either. A vote is a vote, as long as it's counted.

Besides, the problem isn't with voters, but with non-voters.

[AuntPatsy]

150. We cannot forget the possibility that they can still win with a fruadelent

voting system which has yet to be addressed adequately...

[porphyrian]

151. Well, Florida is, anyway. But you are correct. - n/t

[Rex]

149. Depends on their beliefs now doesn't it?

It's not morals I'm worried about. What I worry about is how insane are their views? Believing in a omni-lifefrom is nothing new to humans. How do they rationalize their beliefs? How much of it deals with reality.

I think we see what happens when you let crazy people run things (Cheney, Rummy, etc..).

[AuntPatsy]

157. I have to agree with you, to actually believe we are better off with this

bunch because they pretend to be christians is downright scary thinking....

[dysfunctional press]

154. it does not make their vote any less valuable- just their opinion.

nt.

[spoony]

173. Nice.

You must be very tall, looking down your nose at the world's people like that. Either that or your neck must hurt.

[muriel_volestrangler]

182. It is a good summary, isn't it?

It's an important part of growing up to realise that opinions can be wrong, and worth less than ones backed up by reality.

[kwassa]

193. It is an important part of growing up to realize that definitions of reality differ

and to insist that yours is the correct one is only a matter of your opinion.

[Bluerthanblue]

198. wise words-

intolerance is ugly no matter what the perspective-
thanks for your wise words.

[spoony]

195. Correct, I'm glad you agree that the poster should grow up

and realise that their low opinions of billions of fellow humans isn't backed up by reality.

[muriel_volestrangler]

202. Far less than 'billions' of humans believe in a 6000 year old earth

but I'm sure you knew that already. QuestionAll doesn't need to grow up. Neither do they have low opinions of other humans - they have low opinions of opinions based on fantasy. Take a look at the DU rules, and you'll see that it's common to draw a distinction between a person and their opinions - on DU, we're allowed to insult opinions, but not the DUers who hold them.

[spoony]

236. Who is talking about young earth creationists?

QuestionAll replied to an OP about people with "religious beliefs."

[muriel_volestrangler]

261. The starter of the thread is

See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=838361&mesg_id=838423

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=838361&mesg_id=839237

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=838361&mesg_id=839667

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=838361&mesg_id=839274

especially the 2nd one, where they say this was in reaction to a thread about belief in Creationism.

[spoony]

282. However since it wasn't mentioned in the OP

I would have to hear QA's elaboration as to which group was referenced.

[dysfunctional press]

272. it's both, actually...

although i don't know if 6'4" qualifies as "very" tall- and besides, i've lost several inches over the past decade or so...but that's mostly due to the ankylosing spondylitis- which is also why my neck hurts so much.

but i don't look down my nose at all the world's people-

just the theists.

:hi:

[SPKrazy]

170. Religious Beliefs Ideally Wouldn't Be A Factor

the fundie sects of fake christianity have created an atmosphere of intolerance by their followers in this great nation of ours that was built on religious freedom which includes the fucking freedom to have NO religion.

a vote is a vote, so let's embrace every voter we can, and beliefs aside, we should get the votes and embrace the core values of being a democrat.

leave religion the fuck out of it all

please

[Erika]

178. But Romney believing he will become a God in his own right

That's a bit much. I understand it is the ultimate corporatist dream, but still too much.

Especially when it's left up to him whether his wife goes to heaven. No wonder Mrs. Romney is silent in her disagreements. She can't become a Goddess of her own planet if she doesn't obey her husband.

[LWolf]

184. I agree.

All votes are valuable, regardless of faith.

Even those that don't worship at the shrine of party politics should be accepted, imo.

[Iris]

187. Is this a new idea? Did I miss something? Hasn't the Right already figured this out?

By the same token, just because someone has religious beliefs doesn't mean they match mine or that laws should be made based on them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

192. So if someone said the following things, would they be scorning religious beliefs?

All Christian do not believe in the Creation 6,000 years ago and still believe in God.
All Christian are not narrowly and hypocritically pro-life and are tolerant of those who believe differently
All Christians are not not stupid or petty or hypocrites or homophobic or intolerant.
...
(In reply to: "Wasn't there a Jewish liberal carpenter who said something about loving your neighbor? I guess the hateful, hypocritically Christians haven't heard of him.")
Oh they have it just does not fit there social agenda. See the call of Christ is to lead humble quiet lives empowewerd by God. SO much of what the fundies believe rails against it.. They seek relvance and political power as a means of impacting culture....Look how infreuently they quote Jesus.
...
(In reply to: "You hit on the key points that need to be overcome: hypocrisy, 6000yr story,homophobia, intolerance and stupidity. People with those attributes control our country now.")
I think they make a lot of noise but I don't think they control the country.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=117486

That person seemed pretty scornful of believing in creation 6,000 years ago. Fighting through the negatives, the message seems to be that there are Christians who wish to distance themselves from Creationism, and Creationism gets lumped in with a list of obviously bad things such as homophobia and hypocrisy.

So what changed in just a few weeks?

[trotsky]

206. ZING

Ooh, well played, m_v.

[Goblinmonger]

209. SNAP

You are my hero.

[Perky]

220. Ummm can we place that in context?

I am kidding of course. I do not believe on iota of the subject line.

Having said that

All Christian do not believe in the Creation 6,000 years ago and still believe in God.
All Christian are not narrowly and hypocritically pro-life and are tolerant of those who believe differently
All Christians are not not stupid or petty or hypocrites or homophobic or intolerant.

Some of us are liberal to the core and we do our best to lead quiet, reverent lives without pushing our religion down anyone's throat. MANY OF us are very concerned about Global warming, race relations, civil rights for all people, poverty, affordable housing and a whole slew of an addition liberal issues. There is a an increasing amount of information out there that the pharisees are losing their hold on evangelicals and we are fighting that fight on a daily basis

Our motivations may not be to your liking, but that faith does motivate our progressive agenda. We are entitled to hold what we believe just as you are. We don't throw verbal feces at you, would you please ease up on the equating of Christians and Evangelical with Fundamentalists or theocrats?

I am nopt the least bit scornful of people who believe in Creation, I am scornful of thosw who would attempt to push it down the throats of what is largely a secular nation.


I have never once seen a post by an evangelical on DU slamming the Atheist point of view as stupid or narrow-minded

[Goblinmonger]

230. ...

I have never once seen a post by an evangelical on DU slamming the Atheist point of view as stupid or narrow-minded

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Perhaps you'll squeak out of this by the use of the term "evangelical" but here are my suggestions without calling out specific individuals:

1. search for responses on DU to this article from Raw Story. Maybe you'll find some new friends amongst those calling for atheists to get off of DU or just shut the fuck up.
2. can't get in trouble for calling myself out so read this thread for just the posts you want.

There's more--plenty more. You just don't want to see it.

Disclaimer: I'm not asking for censorship of those statement. I am more than happy to argue it out. I'm just pointing out that spoony either has his head in the sand or just can't spot what he complains about when it is aimed at atheists.

[spoony]

237. You are addressing me?

I have what to do with what you just said?

[Goblinmonger]

246. No, I'm not addressing you.

If you look at the "tree" that the posts make, you will see that I am responding to a post by Perky. If that isn't clear, look in the upper right hand corner of my post and it will give you a link to the post I am responding to. I even quoted out of Perky's post.

If you wish to respond to the point of my post, then go ahead, but your post makes little sense.

[spoony]

249. Uh, then why do you say

"I'm just pointing out that spoony either has his head in the sand..." in this little tree that is not addressing me?

[Goblinmonger]

250. It is I that is the dumbass

My apologies. Must have just gotten done posting a response to you before I typed that one. I tried to edit it but the window for that has closed. Sorry.

[spoony]

253. 'k, not a problem,

just wasn't sure what I was defending myself about, lol.

[spoony]

240. Here's a question:

When is the last time in GD that:

A theist started a thread about a criminal atheist in an attempt to smear atheists as a whole?
" about an extremist atheist "
" about bad atheists of history "
" intentionally misquoting atheist literature "
" quoting some five-member web forum "?


That's every day about theists, Christians in particular. In GD. Not the bloody r/t forum, where I don't go because I, believe it or not, am here for a political site and get sidetracked by all this nonsense, but right here front and center. People literally dedicate themselves to the task of finding obscure and extreme articles and outside forum posts to make religious people look bad. Who does that to atheists here? No one. And they shouldn't. They shouldn't do it to theists either.

[Goblinmonger]

247. When is the last time

that someone in GD started a post saying that Christians are not welcome in the Democratic party? That is the point of the OP.

and my post was pointing out where people have said what Perky said has not been said about atheists. Do you have some argument to deny my point or are you just going to toss out another non sequitar?

[spoony]

251. Not quite, you hardly have to post a sign

saying they aren't welcome when if they are browsing they'll find plenty of hints as to their value to some here. Of course, that was the OP's point, not that anyone had explicitly slapped "no xtians" on a picket sign.

And I am saying, correctly, that no one goes after atheists in that way. Maybe within a thread, usually begun by an atheist, but no one starts in with you in the kind of random, pointless attacks leveled at religion.

[trotsky]

259. This is a political board, spoony.

Not a Christian one. Not a religious one.

You don't get to decide what is discussed here. Sorry.

BTW - "no one starts in with you in the kind of random, pointless attacks leveled at religion":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=813262

When you offer it up, I'll accept your admission of error about "no one" starting such a thread.

[spoony]

277. Exactly, a political board.

Not a religious one. So why the obsession about religion?

And I hadn't seen that thread. I cede that there are, then, instances where it happens. It wasn't wise of me to make an absolute statement. But the point remains that for every rare thread like that, there are dozens going after religion.

For some reason, though, I'm not waiting around for you to similarly make a concession.

[trotsky]

279. In case you've been living in a cave the past 25+ years,

quite a few religious folk have made a point of interjecting their faith into politics.

I think that when they are caught in a compromising position, their hypocrisy should be exposed instead of hidden. You apparently think that it's not an issue. We disagree. We're on a political board. So deal with it.

Thank you for your admission of error. And of course, it would be pointless to wait for a concession from me, mainly because I've not made the kind of absolute claims you have.

[spoony]

281. But why here,

where people don't generally inject religion into politics, should religious people who abstain from trying to force anyone to believe as they do, be pillaried for what you take to be others' hypocrisy? And yes, the scorn is in fact heaped on us as a whole, though some are careful to differentiate between RW religion and mainstream religion, many do not.

It's also politically useless, as threads are often started about pastors getting hookers or whatever, without any explicit tie to Republicans. These are pointed at religious people in general, with an irritating "na na na boo boo" glee that is intolerant and uncivil.

But, whatever, as you say it isn't my call. I can only make a request for more harmony, I cannot and would not want to try to enforce it. However I will continue to point it out where I see it, as it is what I feel I ought to do, and you will do as you feel you ought to do. So be it.

[AuntPatsy]

290. Why here is a good question, the answer is simple, those we are figthing

against to retain law and order in our government use religion constantly, they ran on that particular issue and still to this day use it to attempt to further whatever agenda they have, those running in the repbub party also continue to use religious beliefs to attempt to gain votes for thier 2008 canditacy, this board was made to debate the republicans, to ignore the religious issue would be like playing football without a ball wouldn't you think? If you believe the repubs do not use that they are the most religious party and therefore should lead as their leading issue you have not been paying attention.

No one is attempting to actually criticize any one person, but in order to expose them, you have to highlight the hypocrisy of what they stand for, its all they have, they have proven themselves incapable of running any real government without it and winning.

[spoony]

291. I don't have any problem with that

I assure you I hate Bush and company justifying their war crimes with my faith as much as anyone. It is only those posts which go way beyond the faults and hypocrisy of republicans and conservatives to slam anyone who dares to believe in 'invisible sky unicorns' et al, that I have a problem with.

[AuntPatsy]

292. You know it's kind of funny, alot of people believe in spirits, ghosts if you

may and some of those people who do believe in ghosts don't believe in God simply because they cannot see him nor have ever heard him speak. Look, I am not attempting to attack faith, that is so far from my intent that anyone who knows me knows better, I see nothing wrong with having faith, this world is not easy and for many it is better than anti depressents, but when the faith that I have has been so misused and continues unabated, I feel that I have to stand up and say it's stupid..

and it is stupid you know if you think about it in terms of any if not all of it being based on scientific fact, now I have a problem with scientific fact as well, because it too can be disproven, for anyone to state certain beliefs as fact without more viable reasoning is wrong in my opinion.

If so called christians wish to take umbrage with thier faith being persecuted I would suggest they take it up with those like say, coulter, hannity, bush, etc, etc and get them to quit misusing that faith for nothing more than political power holds, I believe everyone dems included should stop it...

I question everything, I have a mind and am capable of having free choice, I refuse to give that up simply because someone else of faith might tell me thats blasphemy and I could go to hell, not a good argument for me to question everything I have been taught in my life...

Religion has been used to hold people in fear, get rich, begin wars, forgive out and out murder etc, there are so many fractions out there simply because one person decided he didn't want to follow certain rules another made that you have to come to the conclusion that at this point in time, none of us know for sure whats what when it comes to religious teaching....

There are too many inconsistancies in how we came to be and just what it is we are here for...I don't want someone telling me I cannot believe if I so choose, but I also don't like others using a God who I want to believe is real for perpetratin crimes against humanity so I honestly believe that if it becomes taboo to question belief than it leaves those who do abuse belief for their own ends to continue without being made to pay the piper so to speak...

The origins and historical fact of the bible is open to question and debate and should always remain so if anything, it can only make us stronger and more likely to love our neighbor instead of condeming him or her without reason.

[spoony]

255. (Going to be away for a bit, btw)

I'll be back on later.

[muriel_volestrangler]

260. What - 6 weeks later, you add the bit about not being scornful?

That's not 'placing it in context', that's rewriting it. Your original post said "Have a Blessed Day" in place of the sentence starting "I am nopt the least bit scornful ...". Apart from that, you've reproduced what I linked to. You want a distinction made between Fundamentalists and other Christians (saying equating them is like throwing verbal feces). But Fundamentalists are following their religious beliefs - based, by definition, on the Bible. You list believing in a creation 6,000 years ago with hypocrisy, homophobia, intolerance, pettiness and - gosh - stupidity. :shrug:

[foreigncorrespondent]

267. And...

...just because someone is gay, that doesn't make them any less of a person, or their vote worthless. Yet the gay community will get scorned every time there is an election on. The gay community gets scorned by a lot of religious types both left and right, for not being "normal." Does their religious choice make them right? I don't think so.

[earth mom]

287. Religion has NO place in politics. Why should anyone be catered to because of a belief?

I believe that the color pink is the best color of all. Does my candidate have to believe the same thing or just pretend he does to get my vote? :eyes:

[earth mom]

288. Religion has NO place in politics. Why should anyone be catered to because of a belief?

I believe that the color pink is the best color of all. Does my candidate have to believe the same thing or just pretend he does to get my vote? :eyes: