Until the "religious viewpoint" on anything is dismissed, we will never have real progress.

[cleanhippie]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by ellisonz (a host of the General Discussion forum).

With the Presidents historical announcement that he supports marriage for EVERYONE, it brings to the forefront, the REAL reason why there is any issue at all: Religion.

Until we stop giving religious views credence, we will never get past this, or many of the other issues we face today. And I am not talking about just right-wing conservative christian views, I mean ALL of them. And here is why...

Believers on the left who say "I do this because of my religious views" empower those on the right who say "I do this because of my religious views." Only by taking the common view of "because its the right thing to do" and removing religion completely from the equation will progress be made.

Religion is not something upon which policy or public values should ever be based on, because by doing so, it legitimizes those that also use religion to oppress and vilify.

If you want to believe in and follow a religion, go for it. Just please, keep it personal to you and encourage others to also keep it personal, otherwise you empower those on the right who are able to claim the same. The choice is up to you.

[siligut]

1. Organized religion is a tool used to control people

I am not saying that it doesn't do some good, I am saying that control requires limits.

[The2ndWheel]

9. Any organized effort requires control

It would have little chance of succeeding if it didn't.

Two things all organized efforts have in common. They need every member of it to follow the rules, with penalties for non-compliance. The second thing would be a desire to get young people, especially children, involved in whatever their organization is doing.

[siligut]

39. Yes, we agree

So when control is used to maintain the status quo, of those in power, it results in little progress.

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. "The religious viewpoint" ended slavery. n/t

[cleanhippie]

3. Really? It was only the "religious viewpoint" that ended it? It was also the cause, too.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

4. In what way? The Friends (aka Quakers) were involved and even particiated in the underground RR

but they were a small minority. (Smedley, of course, would know that.)

What overall religious viewpoint existed that ended slavery? The Bibles in the North and the South seemed to have accepted slavery as a fact. Is there anything in biblical history that shows a religious opposition to slavery? Or a Christian one?

You may be right, but what do you perceive as the religious viewpoint that ended slavery?

[cali]

6. the abolitionists in general came at slavery from a religious viewpoint

[AnotherMcIntosh]

12. Once again, "a small minority."

Was there a groundswell of religious abolitionists?

How many were there?

Are you thinking of John Brown?

He "withdrew his membership from the Congregational church in the 1840s and never officially joined another church."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)

[redqueen]

15. This is why using something so subjective, and yet

believed to be based on authority from a higher power, is so problematic.

[SidDithers]

7. One could also argue that "the religious viewpoint" enabled slavery...nt

Sid

[cali]

10. one could, but religion really wasn't a pillar of slavery

and it was a pillar of the abolitionist movement. I don't mean to say that pro-slavery proponents didn't use religion, but not nearly to the extent that those opposed did.

[cthulu2016]

17. Ignoring the dog that doesn't bark

You are looking at this in terms of who published what pamphlets or something.

Religion did not have to be argumentatively pro-slavery or pro-feudalism or pro-indentured servitude because those things were not actively questioned until European intellectuals gave upon religion. No defense was needed.

Religion was the central organizing principle of every aspect of European life for a millennia and religion did NOTHING during that span to take up the cause of the economically oppressed.

We know this because the lives of the economically most oppressed were magically little changed during a thousand years of religion calling the shots.

So to postulate that somehow religion magically changed independently during the enlightenment, rather than absorbing secular values during the enlightenment is an implausible sort of coincidence.

Slavery was abolished throughout almost all of the world within 150 years of Locke... and 1850 years of Christianity. And we are supposed to credit the later as the source of the idea?

[The Magistrate]

55. Actually It Was, Ma'am, And They Did

It is far easier to cite the Bible in support of slavery than i opposition to it. There are numerous statements even in the New Testament that not only sanction it, but advise against manumitted slaves, even if both master and slave are Christian; in the Old Testament there are fully elaborated codes of law, viewed as divine ordinances, for acquiring and treating slaves.

To cite the Bible in opposition to slavery, you have to engage in the 'what this verse really means is...' game. Northern abolitionists certainly did this, and Southerners pretty much made monkeys of the when they tried.

[cali]

67. Yes, the Bible was used in support of slavery- but religion wasn't

used as extensively by slavery supporters- or as effectively.

Think Harriet Beecher Stowe.

The claim that southerners "made monkeys of the abolitionists" doesn't hold water. "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was far more important than

any religious appeal to slavery- and it most certainly was a religious appeal, Sirrah.

[lumberjack_jeff]

69. The catholic church has been against slavery since 1741.

Abolitionism hasn't been a marginal view within Christianity for many hundreds of years.

The southerners who "made monkeys of them", lost; Practically, morally and doctrinally.

The bible reflects cultural mores and knowledge of the times in which it was written. The fact that it's ambiguous on the topic doesn't necessarily mean that modern faith is.

[backscatter712]

21. The thing about religion is that it can be used to justify anything.

Which is why I say that ALL Christians are "Cafeteria Christians". You all pick and choose.

Some people pick the parts of the Bible that say be nice to people and fight against injustice.

Some other people pick the parts that say that slavery is A-OK.

And as a completely random aside, may I mention slavery as an argument why the Ten Commandments are a fundamentally flawed moral code.

You'd think that any decently written moral code would include "Thou shalt not keep other human beings as property."

[gratuitous]

11. Thank you

The prejudice is just so tiresome, no matter how acceptable it is to so many.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. I agree. I'm an atheist and I think the predjudice is unfair.

By all means, call out hypocrites, but don't attack people with whom we should share common cause.

[cleanhippie]

20. I am not "attacking" anyone. I am asking liberal believers to stop empowering right-wing believers.

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. In my experience "Liberal believers" largely rely on their religious viewpoint for political views

With a lot of justification. If you comply with Jesus' advice, it's impossible to be anything other than a liberal.

The problem is the financial and social interests of modern churches are inconsistent with that advice, so they created a catechism to enable them to get rich and wield social power.

[cleanhippie]

29. And this is why I posted my OP in the first place.

If you comply with Jesus' advice, it's impossible to be anything other than a liberal.

Yeah, and the conservative can say the exact same thing. You both think you are right. How about this, you both keep your opinions about what you think jesus said or meant, and when he comes back, we can all just ask him and get the whole thing cleared up.

[cthulu2016]

13. Utterly False

Christianity had 1700-1800 years to do something about slavery and did not. The specific African export slavery started in a Christian world and ended in a relatively secular world.

Slavery was common in the Roman empire. Jesus never said boo about it.

In fact, the idea that a human being cannot own another human being is a, perhaps even THE central central humanist value.

During the enlightenment many educated people stopped believing in an active supernatural god and slavery was abolished everywhere in relatively short order.

The fact that some religious people incorporated enlightenment values into their religiosity and were notable anti-slavery people is hardly an argument for religion.

[redqueen]

16. Didn't Jesus describe the fair punishment or use of slaves?

Or was that just included somewhere in the bible?

[cthulu2016]

18. It merely didn't want to be contentious

So I did not get into the fact that Jesus is quoted as speaking of slavery as an uncontroversial social arrangement and merely noted that he didn't speak against it.

But, of course, Jesus had no major interest in anything that happened on Earth, which he believed would end before 100AD.

There would be no point abolishing slavery since all slaves would soon be liberated in much more meaningful way when they died and entered into the kingdom of heaven, where the last shall be first.

[daaron]

25. Unless I'm mistaken, the Civil War ended slavery.

[cbayer]

33. Also spearheaded the civil rights movement for African Americans.

[cali]

5. what nonsense.

first of all, that's never going to happen. Secondly, religious views were a major impetus behind the abolitionists- and a minor argument against those in the pro-slavery camp. MLK was motivated to a significant degree by religious belief and he used religion to further the cause of civil rights.

Mostly though, I object to your pov because it's silly pie in the sky crap.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

8. You're correct, but this may not be a left-right thing.

Are there truly "Believers on the left who say 'I do this because of my religious views'"?

Some are not as nutty as right-wing fundamentalists, but does that make them believers on the left?

[Taverner]

14. Agreed. Agree 100%.

Anyone who says religion actually forwards human rights just doesn't get it.

[Roland99]

23. The God Delusion must be exposed worldwide

[struggle4progress]

24. I consider your analysis moronic: it is a lazy substitute

for the hard and necessary work of investigating in detail the actual mechanisms of particular political events and the actual organizing forces behind particular political movements

[cleanhippie]

30. The feeling is mutual.

[struggle4progress]

36. I don't doubt the feeling is mutual -- but I at least possess

an analytical method for examining social forces and for deciding, on the basis of some facts, exactly what steps I should take to win the political fights I choose to fight

OTOH your analytical talents and energies seem confined to broad-brush characterization

[cleanhippie]

38. Oh, yes, you are so superior to me.

Do you feel better about yourself now?

[daaron]

26. We can catch more flies with honey than vinegar!

A little something I learned from my grandfather, a Presbyterian minister who worked with the SDS in the '60s. I'm more of an agnostic than a Christian, I guess, but there are lots of liberal Christians I know who do work hard within their churches and communities and they are good, kind, loving people who aren't part of the problem. Can't we all get along?

[bananas]

27. This is wrong, bigoted, offensive, and counter-productive.

Religion has always been with us and it always will be, are we living in the stone age, no, real progress has been made and continues to be made. Your basic premise is wrong and disproved by history.

Telling religious liberals to shut up will just give religious conservatives a louder voice.

Sounds like you want "don't ask don't tell" for religious people. That's bigoted and offensive.

I'm not religious, but religious freedom is an important liberal value.

Telling religious liberals to keep it in the closet is offensive, wrong, and counterproductive.

[cleanhippie]

32. When you casually throw aroundthe word "bigoted" like this...

You undermine everything you have to say.

[bananas]

60. I wasn't casually throwing it around. nt

[ag_dude]

28. "I don't care if a person is gay, just don't be so open about it."

What's the difference between the bigots that say that kind of stuff and people such as yourself that think religious beliefs should be suppressed?

[dmallind]

35. I don't see a call for suppression, merely for separation

It's more "I don't care if you're gay, just don't force gayness into laws governing all of us". Quite a sensible and definitely not bigoted statement.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. And we can still guarantee they still have full rights.

We can even call it, "separate but equal" just so no one becomes confused about the intent.

[cleanhippie]

45. Are you saying that being gay is a lifestyle choice that one makes?

Because religion certainly is. Is this what you are equivocating?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. Elective abortion is a choice. Is it a right?

[Marrah_G]

63. There is actually a difference

Religion is something you are born with. You can change religions at any time. You can stop being a member of religion.

You can't stop being gay.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

66. You can also choose which political party to support and which papers to read

Choice is as much a right as being gay or of a certain race or gender.

[cbayer]

31. Statement of NC Clergy and Faith Leaders Against the Anti-LGBT Constitutional Amendment

Statement of NC Clergy and Faith Leaders Against the Anti-LGBT Constitutional Amendment
As people of faith, clergy and leaders in our faith traditions, we are mandated by God to demonstrate and protect love in all its forms and to stand for justice for all of creation. In faithful response to this calling, we commit ourselves, along with thousands of other Christians, Jews, Muslims and other people of faith around North Carolina, to these basic principles:

While we respect the fact that debate and discussion continue in many of our religious communities as to the scriptural, theological and liturgical issues involved, we draw on our many faith traditions to arrive at a common conviction. We oppose the use of sacred texts and religious traditions to deny legal equity to gay and lesbian people.

We oppose any amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that would prohibit gay and lesbian couples from receiving the protections like health benefits and hospital visitation afforded by recognition of their relationships.

We affirm freedom of conscience in this matter. We recognize that the state may not require religious clergy to officiate at, or bless, gay and lesbian marriages. Likewise, a denial of state civil recognition dishonors the religious convictions of those clergy, supported by their faith communities, who officiate at and bless gay and lesbian marriages.
http://equalitync.org/clergy

[dmallind]

37. relevant to the OP's preference for the separation of religion and politics how?

If your nicer gentler clergy can push their legal agenda, how the hell can we stop the much more numerous, much better financed, and much more organized RW clergy from doing the same, or even blame them for doing so?

[cbayer]

51. We can't and never will stop them. We can only counter them.

When progressive believers step to the plate, they merit our support, not derision.

[daaron]

54. Hm. That's a really good point, dmallind.

I confess I had not thought about it that way. It does somewhat seem to perpetuate continued bickering amongst sectarian groups on the left and right of political issues.

[Ruby the Liberal]

34. Any chance to take a swing at liberals of faith.

God it gets old. Don't you have a group for this?

And off it goes.

[cleanhippie]

40. It is really unfortunate that you are unable to see beyond your own bias.

Because I am not taking a swing at liberal believers. This is directed at using unsubstantiated beliefs as a reason to push public policy.

[Union Scribe]

48. THEIR bias??

Wow, talking about not being able to see beyond oneself. WTF. Like Ruby said, haul this garbage back to your designated hate corner.

[randome]

41. So this is 'fake' progress?

I understand what you mean about religion but progress has been made and will continue to be made.

What you probably meant was that it won't be enough progress to satisfy everyone.

And I agree with that.

[LanternWaste]

42. When I trade the word 'religion' in your premise for the word 'philosophy'

"Believers on the left who say "I do this because of my philosophical views" empower those on the right who say "I do this because of my philosophical views." Only by taking the common view of "because its the right thing to do" and removing philosophy completely from the equation will progress be made.

When I trade the word 'religion' in your premise for the word 'philosophy' (both of which are wholly imaginary constructs appearing no where but our own minds, yes?), it your premise still applicable? If not, what is the precise, relevant, and objective difference?

[daaron]

59. Religion =/= Philosophy

One is based on faith and belief, the other is based on reason and logic. This is a false equivalence.

Clearly, in a secular republic such as ours, we must only base public policy on the latter, never the former.

[Zorra]

44. Great post. This is very important.

I believe that there is a huge difference between "religious" people who have a genuine understanding of love, who I would call spiritual, and not religious, and those that blindly follow some religious dogma written in a book that they use as justification for the boiling hatred that arises from the fear, confusion, shallowness, and corruption of their essential consciousness. These latter selectively use scriptural verse that they believe supports and jusitifies the seething rage of hatred that exists in the darkness of their being, and thereby justifies the unwarranted harm, pain, and destruction that they wantonly inflict upon innocent others in the name of their particular "deity".

They totally disregard other scriptural verse that is contrary to their need to justify, express, and manifest their demented hatred.

I know some wonderful tolerant, loving, giving, sincere people who practice a faith. Awesome folks, very...Loving. They are also horrified by those who use religion as a means to manifest evil and hatred.

And then there are the demented, deluded authoritarian fundamentalists, whose entire existence revolves around their hatred of others. These are very sad, and dangerous creatures. They are without genuine, effective conscience, and if not restricted by reasonable laws, they would ruthlessly take control, through violent means, over those of us who believe in being tolerant of others, and have a "live and let live" attitude towards others.

Reasonable laws are the only way that we can ethically contain these unfortunate people from causing wanton destruction upon individuals and/or societies, because they are completely intolerant of people they view as different from themselves, and do not consider or recognize the fact that harmless, innocent others have a natural right to be different from them.

So, I totally agree with you, cleanhippie.

"

Believers on the left who say "I do this because of my religious views" empower those on the right who say "I do this because of my religious views." Only by taking the common view of "because its the right thing to do" and removing religion completely from the equation will progress be made.

"Religion is not something upon which policy or public values should ever be based on, because by doing so, it legitimizes those that also use religion to oppress and vilify."

Separation of Church and State is crucial to the recognition and preservation of human rights and justice in our society, and we should do everything in our power to insure that Church and State remain completely separate.

Religion has brought unparalleled and unfathomable death, destruction, and psychological and emotional torment to millions of completely innocent human beings throughout history, and continues to do so today.

The widespead, unwarranted, immoral persecution of LGBT persons throughout the world is a crystal clear current illustration of the great harm that religious people cause to innocent human beings.

And this is why we all must insist that religious people be prevented, by law, from being able to harm LGBT folks, or any other innocent group of people, in any way.

Because, in their religious zeal fueled by their crippling fear and burning hatred, they will work diligently and relentlessly to cause harm to LGBT persons, or any other group that they choose to hate, and this could even eventually turn into genocide under certain circumstances, if these insane people are not called out and firmly held in check by law. It has happened all too often in the past.

They have no remorse, because they believe that the harm that they so righteously and gleefully inflict upon others is the will of their god. They can justify any harm they do to others by writing it off as "god's will". After all, it says so right there in the book, in the particular chapter and verse they have selected to justify their mean lttle selves.

Right now they are using the system to harm us, as exemplified by the recent passage of the fascist amendment in North Carolina, legitimizing the unwarranted oppression of LGBT persons by the religious.

We need to call upon our Federal Government to stop this insanity. The LGBT community is basically defenseless as a minority struggling to withstand the onslaught of hate rained down upon us by this insane, hostile, religious majority that exists in many states.

Peace, Love, Light, Freedom, Health, Happiness, and Equality to all.

(If some of what I have written here seems harsh, well, I wrote it that way in the hope that any religious bigot who might read this would recognize themselves in the descriptions of the deadly monster, and upon reflection would have a change of heart, and work on becoming a reasonable, tolerant human being)

[cleanhippie]

46. Thank you.

[Zorra]

49. My pleasure.

Thanks backatcha!

[Union Scribe]

47. Keep this bigoted shit in the religion forum.

Religious people do not have a disease they need to hide from your precious eyes.

Does GD not have hosts enforcing SOP anymore?

[redqueen]

52. I suspect that due to the fact that it is religious people who fight gay marriage,

that the thread is considered to be discussing the religion-effected aspect or this current event and not religion per se.

[Union Scribe]

62. So one line about current events

and that's good enough to go on a rip-roaring GD tirade about religion in general. Gotcha.

[DefenseLawyer]

57. It is "bigoted" to say "I don't agree with your ideas"?

Your views should unquestionably be afforded toleration, but that doesn't mean that your views must be given respect. From what I can see no one is saying you can't be religious, the opinion expressed is that basing our government on the beliefs of a religious group is a bad idea. You'll have to tell me how that is "bigoted". You are free to be a free market capitalist. If I say having a government which only espouses policies that comport with the views of absolute free market capitalism is a horrible idea, does that make me a "bigot" against capitalists? There is a big difference between saying religious people should be silenced or suppressed and simply saying that one thinks your views should be rejected.

[Union Scribe]

61. Really? You see this OP as "I don't agree with your ideas"?

Really? Nothing more than that?

[DefenseLawyer]

68. That's the way I see it, yes.

The OP doesn't think public policy should be based on religious beliefs and would prefer if everyone agreed with him. Obviously everyone does not. I fail to see how that makes him a "bigot". I hear all the time from the religious that because it is their firmly held "belief" that we all must "respect" it or we are bigots. I think that's ridiculous. Your ideas are no more worthy of respect than anyone else's. Your ideas should be tolerated. No one should suppress your ability to think anything you want, believe anything you want, worship anything you want and express those views any way you want. I should likewise be able to say "I think your ideas are stupid". You are free to say "my religious ideas should form the foundations of all public policy". The OP thinks that's a bad idea.

[ProSense]

50. Religion

is not the problem. See this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002670200

The problem is people who hide behind religion to justify their bigotry and hate.

[Union Scribe]

53. That's weird, because didn't you just

rec a thread that says "religion flies you into buildings"?

[The Magistrate]

56. At Least, Sir, So Far As Matters Concerning Gender Relations And Sexuality Are Concerned

[quinnox]

58. please post religion threads in the religion forums

It clearly says no religion if you read the text about topics allowed in general discussion. I have a feeling you know that.

[DefenseLawyer]

64. It's not a thread about religion

It's a thread about public policy. I think it made the point pretty clearly that you should be free to believe anything you want to believe.

[ellisonz]

70. Locking

The Statement of Purpose of this forum clearly states: "no religion...unless there is really big news." After some discussion, I do not believe this post meets the standard of "really big news," although it does name check the President's statement on marriage equality, the clear point of the post is to drag debate of religion into the General Discussion forum. Please feel free to repost in the religion forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1217 - Thank you for understanding.

-ellisonz
GD Host