When it comes to voting re: religious issues, is there a large gap between DU Believers and Atheists

[el_bryanto]

Issues like
- teaching creationism in schools
- allowing Atheist student clubs on campus
- allowing religious displays on public property
- allowing exemptions to laws in regards to religious belief (i.e. the stuff in Arizona)
- voting for a non-believer for public office
- Churches retaining their tax exempt status

There are probably other issues I'm not thinking of right now; the point is - on these issues do you think that DU Believers will vote one way and DU Atheists will vote another?

Cards on table, I personally think that when it comes to actually voting we would be on the same page for most issues except possibly tax exempt status for Churches and religious displays on public property. For the latter I think we'd be on the same page if a judge said "I'm putting up a statue of the ten commandments!" but might differ on community Christmas traditions or a religious symbol that has been on public land for a long time - i.e. something that is part of the community.

Bryant

5 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes - there is a huge gap between how DU Atheists and DU Believers would vote on religious issues
	0 (0%)
	Yes - there is a gap between how DU Atheists and DU Believers would vote on religious issues
	0 (0%)
	Yes - there is a small gap between how DU Atheists and DU Believers would vote on religious issues
	3 (60%)
	No - there's no real gap between how DU Atheists and DU Believers would vote on religious issues
	2 (40%)
	You know where I see a gap? Between your brain and reality, that you would post such a bullshit poll
	0 (0%)
	I like to vote!
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[rug]

1. Despite the best efforts of some, there's no gap.

[cbayer]

2. It has long been my position that DU believers and non-believers have legions

more in common than they do differences.

Those who wish to exploit the very small difference and continually try and vanquish the other side are divisive and harm all the issues that you list in your OP.

And the greatest irony is that the common enemy is the religious right. When it comes to issues that they are most vehement about, the coalition of liberal/progressive believers and non-believers could be a formidable and effective force.

But some seem intent on making sure that never happens.

Really makes you wonder about motive sometimes.

[el_bryanto]

5. Their position is logical based on where they are coming from

I don't think you need to ascribe malicious motive.

Bryant

[cbayer]

6. Perhaps not, but the logic of being an anti-theist escapes me.

It seems entirely emotional and not at all rational.

[el_bryanto]

8. I don't want to be critical, but you need to try and look at it from their perspective

We pay societal costs for religious belief; the Tea Party and Religious Conservatives are motivated by their religious beliefs, and, to a certain extent, have influence in society because of those religious beliefs.

Now you and I would argue for societal and personal benefits that outweigh those societal costs; but if you are an atheist presumably you don't see those benefits. Or you see them as minor compared to the societal costs.

So why pay the societal costs for something that has little to no benefit to society?

I might have phrased it better but it seems logical to me, assuming you discount the societal and personal benefits of religious belief.

Bryant

[cbayer]

11. And I think that liberal/progressive people have a shared enemy in the

tea party and religious conservatives. Criticizing their religious beliefs and fighting against the injustices pursued in the name of that religion is a good fight.

It's the inability to see the differences within the religious community that I find as dogmatic and rigid as the I find the religious right.

I disagree completely that religion has little to no benefit to society. Without religious groups and individuals, the most marginalized among us would have nothing. Until and unless secular groups and the government pick up the slack, advocating for the demise of these groups is completely against what the democratic party stands for.

What do you call it when someone can't see the differences and ascribes the traits of some to the whole?

It's not logical at all to me, but just born of prejudice and sometimes outright bigotry.

[trotsky]

13. I am disappointed that you continue to hurl outrageous charges like that at others, cbayer.

el_bryanto is doing a good job trying to explain and bridge our differences, but you seem to be building walls and doing the dividing yourself. Especially with the use of such accusatory language.

[trotsky]

12. As a brief summary, that is pretty good.

I would modify it only slightly: there is no evidence that the benefits of religion (charity, community, etc.) can't also be obtained without it.

[el_bryanto]

14. Strictly societal benefits you might be right;

but obviously believers would argue that there are benefits that come specifically from their relationship with the Divine.

Bryant

[trotsky]

17. Technically, those benefits too.

For those of us who had been believers, who experienced those benefits, but then discarded our faith and received the benefits from things other than the divine. (Sense of wonder, purpose, belonging, etc.) None of these things can *only* come from religion, IMHO.

[el_bryanto]

37. I can see what you are saying

And from your point of view, I can see how that's 100% correct. But if there is a God out there to have a relationship, as I believe there is, than you can only have that relationship by knowing him and having idea about his character - reaching out to him. That's the religious point of view.

But it comes down to the question of whether you think there's anything to religion - if you don't than of course all the benefits of religion can be acquired without religion. If you believe that there is something to religion, than some of those benefits must, by definition, come from how you practice your religion.

Bryant

[thucythucy]

53. I would argue that another benefit

is that the belief in a "higher power" can motivate people to take courageous stands for social justice. This may be more the case in the past than today, but perhaps not. I have trouble, for instance, thinking of the atheist analogs to Mahatma Gandhi, Sophie Scholl, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Malcolm X, etc. All of these folks were motivated by and strengthened through their religious beliefs, to the point of being willing to die for what they believed in. Similarly, the Liberation Theology movement in Latin America often meant the literal martyrdom of its proponents--priests and laypeople under threat from right wing death squads, but still willing to do their work for social justice.

Of course, that works the other way as well--reactionaries are also inspired by religion--as we see so often nowadays. Though I tend to see much more charlatanism on the religious right--TV evangelists, right wing preachers becoming millionaires, etc.--than on the left. Generally speaking I see leaders on the religious right more often selling a product--and reaping a profit--than willing to suffer persecution and violence in the service of a cause in which they believe. Put it another way: folks on the religious left are willing oftentimes to die for what they believe in, whereas folks on the religious right are sometimes willing to kill in the name of the Lord.

How this balances out--whether for instance the good done by the religious people involved in the civil rights movement of the 1950s-60s outweighs the bad done by the Moral Majority types of the 1980s and on--I really can't say. Both sides are definitely there, though.

To answer your question though--I haven't noticed much difference at all between religious and non-religious progressives I know, and I assume the same is true for folks on DU.

Best wishes.

[trotsky]

63. Are you saying that people without belief in a "higher power" never take courageous stands?

The majority of humans have been theists, so it logically follows that the majority of notable names in history have also been.

However there are plenty of atheists that have taken courageous stands throughout history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_activists_and_educators
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_politics_and_law

I don't think it does any good to perpetuate a tired and false stereotype that it's only believers who have fought and sacrificed for social justice.

[thucythucy]

64. No, I'm not saying that at all.

I'm simply saying that many social activists--particularly those willing to die for their beliefs--were motivated at least in part by their spirituality. And that many of the leaders that progressives admire most--Gandhi and King being two prime examples--defined their mission almost entirely in terms of their belief in a higher power. In that regard, I notice that many of the activists in the first link you provide are "leaders" only in the sense that they advocate around atheism, which is fine, but strikes me as similar to religious folk whose work is primarily around building their own congregations, or fighting the persecution of their own sect. The second link seems more inclusive of folks who fought for something other than atheism--people like Nadine Gordimer, for instance, who as a writer took a courageous stand against apartheid.

To repeat, I never said "it's only believers who have fought and sacrificed for social justice." Only that belief has motivated many of our most successful and powerful progressive activists. This, in the context of a sub-thread discussing the benefits of religious belief.

I don't think it does any good to read into a comment an intent that isn't there.

Best wishes.

[trotsky]

66. Sure they were motivated by their beliefs.

Do you think that an atheistic equivalent to MLK Jr. would have been impossible? Or do you think that MLK would have been a lesser person without his Christian beliefs?

[thucythucy]

67. I don't know.

It's difficult to postulate what might have been and alternate histories. What DID happen though was that many of the leaders of the movement--Dr. King, Rev. Jackson, Ralph Abernathy, John Lewis, among many others--held strong religious beliefs. I don't think there's any doubt of that. And they often cited these beliefs as the justification for their activism, and fell back on those beliefs in time of stress, up to and including martyrdom for the cause.

Some of this may well have been historical happenstance. Since religious activity was generally the ONLY communal activity allowed slaves, the black churches provided pretty much the only social infrastructure (besides unions, I should say, particularly the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters) around which to organize a movement. So that's the way it ended up happening. Had the history been different, the movement, the leaders, everything else might have been different as well. But it's impossible to know.

And I'm certainly not saying religious belief is the ONLY avenue toward social justice. Refresh my memory, but wasn't W.E.B. Dubois an atheist? I should go back to your links and see if he's listed. Not to mention your namesake, L. Trotsky. Of course, some folks include communism as a sort of "religion"--belief in the class struggle and the immutable laws of historical dialectic as the "higher power." But that's a whole other can of worms.

Really, my posts weren't meant as any sort of judgment, just historical observation, is all.

[trotsky]

68. There did appear to be a judgment in your initial post, glad you cleared that up.

Also glad you admit that believers and non-believers can be equally committed to social justice, and equally motivated, and that religious belief doesn't necessarily make someone any *more* committed or motivated.

Regarding the US civil rights movement, this is an interesting piece:

Blacks say atheists were unseen civil rights heroes

Think of the civil rights movement and chances are the image that comes to mind is of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. leading the 1963 March on Washington.

But few people think of A. Philip Randolph, a labor organizer who originated the idea of the march and was at King's side as he made his famous I Have a Dream speech.

Why is King, a Christian, remembered by so many and Randolph, an atheist, by so few? It's a question many African-American nontheists — atheists, humanists and skeptics — are asking this Black History Month, with some scholars and activists calling for a re-examination of the contributions of nontheists of color to the civil rights movement and beyond.

"So often you hear about religious people involved in the civil rights movement, and as well you should, but there were also humanists," said Norm R. Allen Jr. of the Institute for Science and Human Values, a humanist organization based in Tampa, Fla.

BTW, my username isn't a reference to the historical Trotsky. Yes, it causes confusion, for which I can only apologize.

[rug]

69. Who do you nominate as the atheistic equivalent to MLK Jr.?

Or are you entertaining a fantasy?

[trotsky]

62. What I'm saying is that the benefits you believe you get from having a relationship with your god...

are not exclusive to religion. The lives of non-believers are not incomplete or lacking simply because they don't have religion in them.

Religious beliefs, to me, are like color or food preferences. You may like a certain thing, it pleases you, etc., but ultimately it's just a personal opinion. There is no objective standard for what is the "best" color or "best" dish, and I can't imagine anyone would insist that their opinion on those things is true on some kind of universal level. Yet that's what people do with their gods, and why it leads to so many problems when we have to co-exist.

[trotsky]

7. Just wanted to chime in here and say...

thank you for that.

[hrmjustin]

4. I am for keeping tax exemot status for houses of worship.

[cleanhippie]

9. Why?

I'm for only the actual amount given to charity being tax-exempt. The rest is "business income".

[hrmjustin]

10. There is no reason to change the rules.

Besudes most houses of worship just barely make it and taxing them could put a few out of business. And no good reason has been given as to why they should be taxed.

[el_bryanto]

15. What if the Church engages in political activity?

I do share your concern about smaller struggling houses of worship, but on the other side there are very large Churchs who overtly engage in political activity.

Bryant

[hrmjustin]

16. As long as they don't endorse candidates then it is not an issue.

[cleanhippie]

18. No good reason has been given as to why they shouldn't be taxed.

[rug]

19. The reason is historical.

"The power to tax involves the power to destroy." - Chief Justice John Marshall, 1819.

It's related to the First Amendment and the colonists' experience with the Crown and Church.

Start with Gibbons v. District of Columbia (1886).

[hrmjustin]

20. That may or may not be true but the law will not likeky be changed.

[cleanhippie]

27. Perhaps not as unlikely as one might think.

Parts of it are already under scrutiny, such as the parsonage exemption. The abuse of tax-exempt status by churches is growing (or perhaps it's just that the public is actually hearing about it more) and public sentiment is changing, much like the general attitude toward organized religion is changing.

Headline events like Osteens church losing $600,000 to theft, and the public realizing that this wa the take for just ONE WEEKEND is causing people to reevaluate the whole scam (my word, my opinion)

Time will tell, but the trend shows change ahead. YMMV.

[hrmjustin]

28. Making that much money in a Sunday does not mean it is a scam but I don't trust that guy.

I think it was an inside job. While somethings will be rethought I doubt they will tax houses of worship. If there is some abuse then that has to be looked into.

[cleanhippie]

29. The point of bringing osteen up is to highlight the publics growing awareness of the abuses

Of the tax exempt status. A "church" that brings in that much money is not a non-profit. This would be an excellent example f where only the money given directly to charity is exempted. Osteen IS the problem, as are the "churches" like his that rake in money by the truckload.

[hrmjustin]

31. You make interesting points and I have to say I was appauled when I heard they brought that much

money in. If they gave it to the poor I would say good but from what I have seen it goes to staff.

[edhopper]

21. I think the difference is

the refusal of believers to confront the theology and beliefs that lead the RW to push their agenda.
The Atheist want them challenged, the believers seem to say it is only when they act that they should be fought, and then accept their beliefs, but not their actions. As I have said before, they will always act on their beliefs and we must change the mindset.

[el_bryanto]

22. Who "will always act on their beliefs" in that statement? nt

[edhopper]

24. The fundamentalists

it's their beliefs that push them, and not challenging those beliefs publicly, leads us to the laws we see they are attempting to pass.

[el_bryanto]

36. Which beliefs should we be challenging? Young earth creationism or more than that? nt

[edhopper]

38. That

the Bible being anti-Gay, Abortion is evil and a zygote has a soul, the USA is founded with a Christian foundation, etc....

[cbayer]

23. Progressive/liberal religious leaders do confront that theology and belief set.

Moral Mondays is a great and active movement doing exactly that. And there are many other groups doing it in a variety of areas including choice, GLBT civil rights and economic equality. Religious groups played a role in OWS all over the country.

What more would you have them do?

[edhopper]

25. I haven't seen that

Yes there are liberal religious groups promoting progressive causes, but they seem to get all ecumenical when talking about beliefs.

[cbayer]

26. In what way do you mean "ecumenical"?

Do you mean that their primary goal appears to be furthering christianity or only trying to protect christians?

You might want to take a closer look at some of these movements, starting with Moral Mondays.

What do you think of Bill Moyers? Do you think his agenda is ecumenical? Eugene Robinson? The writers at Religion Dispatches? The studies released last year showing a significant growth in religious people who consider themselves progressive?

[edhopper]

30. Name a religious leader

who has challenged the beliefs of fundamentalists.
Not the laws they want to enact, but their beliefs?

[cbayer]

32. Bill Moyers, Eugene Robinson, William Barber, Sister Simone Campbell.

I could go on and on. All of these people, and many more, challenge beliefs of fundamentalists when those beliefs cause harm to or impact on the civil liberties of others. There are others who challenge the beliefs that contradict science and interfere with the appropriate education of our children or efforts to address climate change.

Are you really not aware of this? Again, I ask what it is you would have them do that they are not doing.

[edhopper]

33. Bill Moyers and Eugene Robinson are journalists

and while Barber and Campbell fight the good fight, they challenge right wing politics and i have not see them denounce other religious beliefs.
If you have any quotes?

Religious Leaders who challenge other religions

If you have an example of that I'd be interested, because that is the entire point of my original statement

[rug]

34. Well, since you asked . . . .

Pope Francis condemns fundamentalism, urges setting an example over proselytizing



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/03/pope-francis-condemns-fundamentalism-urges-setting-an-example-over-proselytizing/

[edhopper]

40. Really?

Sorry but proselytizing is so minor that it could only be an issue within the Church.
Let me know when he stops saying living the Gay lifestyle, abortion, condomn use, contraceptive healthcare, etc...aren't sins before God.

[rug]

43. It helps if you read past the headline.

[edhopper]

47. I did

took me a second pass to see he was talking about multiple viewpoints.
I appreciate his rhetoric and ho[e there will be actual change. Not holding my breath but...

[rug]

48. If he has time there might be, but he's 77.

Who is chosen as his successor will be the bellwether.

[edhopper]

50. John XXIII

only had 5 and look what he did.

[rug]

51. That's true. What he put in motion is still rolling after 50 years of resistance.

[edhopper]

57. like the Republicans and

Medicare

[cbayer]

35. Please. It is clear that you could find a reason to eliminate anyone I name.

Bill Moyers is a journalist, but also known as a very religious man who is a leader.

If you don't know who Gene Robinson is, then it's not surprising that you are not really well versed in any of this. If I threw you off by calling him Eugene, I apologize. But still, I thought everyone knew who he was….. well, at least anyone who said they were interested in religious issues.

The fact that you haven't seen others challenge or denounce some of the beliefs held by the religious right is only because you either haven't been paying attention or are in some kind of denial because it doesn't fit your narrative. The whole goal of Moral Mondays is to directly challenge the religious right. It couldn't be more clear.

Do you want to give you my father's email? He is one. He lives in a community that is totally populated by people who you challenge me to produce.

Don't move the goalposts here. You said leaders that challenge some of the religious beliefs held by the religious right. If you are moving this to some sort of christian challenges jew challenges muslim argument, you have completely changed the question.

[edhopper]

39. Read my Post #30

I said "religious leader" not leader who is also religious,
I didn't think that needed further explanation. guess I was wrong.

[cbayer]

41. Guess you were. But you won't even accept the religious leaders I listed….

so I don't think there is much more to talk about.

[edhopper]

42. I'll take your word for it

In my Google search of things they have said,I saw support for progressive ideals, but no challenge of the rw fundies on religious grounds.
Perhaps you have some quotes of this?

And do you endorse this now? For years you have been saying it is wrong to challenge others religious beliefs as long as the don't act on them?

[cbayer]

45. I haven't been saying that for years.

You have been saying that I say that for years.

I think people are entitled to their beliefs as long as they don't impinge on the rights or liberties of others.

You have the position that everyone's beliefs lead to actions. I don't agree with this. I maintain that there are fundamentalists that have beliefs with which I disagree that keep those beliefs very private. I know some that don't even vote, or, if they do, they are not one issue voters and often have other ideas and beliefs that are more important.

I think what they believe is none of my or anyone else's business. I'm not in the thought control business nor do I want anyone else to be in it when it comes to my personal convictions.

You just can't seem to get your head around that and repeatedly want to make it into something it is not.

I can't explain this any more clearly to you.

[edhopper]

49. So I'll just go back to my original statement

and hold the same opinion.
you feel free to disagree.

[cbayer]

52. This original statement:

"I think the difference is the refusal of believers to confront the theology and beliefs that lead the RW to push their agenda."

So, despite being given information that really dispels that notion, you are going to hold on to it?

Hmm….. that seems familiar (and not in a good way).

[edhopper]

58. Sure with all those

quotes that were furnished. yep, tons of info.

[cbayer]

59. Do your own research, edhopper.

You didn't even know who Gene Robinson was. I am not going to educate you on this, but you can continue to make statements about what you believe based on pretty much no accurate information.

[edhopper]

61. Perhaps if you had said Bishop Gene Robinson as he is commonly known

instead using the name of the reporter, after another journalist, I would not have been mistaken.
My fault nor not being clairvoyant.
And I do know who he is.

[cbayer]

65. You went to the google and got it wrong.

You are not familiar with him and that's a fact.

I've never ever heard of this reporter, but most everyone familiar with liberal clergy in this country are familiar with Robinson.

You are not. That's ok. I am merely suggested that you might want to make yourself familiar before making statements about what they do and don't do.

I don't think that's much to ask.

[okasha]

44. Eugene Robinson

was the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church. He was living openly as a gay man with his now-husband when he was elected Bishop of New Hampshire.

There is a journalist by the same name, but I believe cbayer intended the Bishop to be understood.

There's also Bishop Desmond Tutu, Barry Lynn, the national United Churches of Christ and Katherine Schorri, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, among many, many others.

[cbayer]

46. He wants quotes.

[shenmue]

54. When it comes to the law, I do not want to mix church and state. Ever.

I would protect everyone's rights, whether the person is religious or not. That's what America's for.

In conversation, there is a huge gap. In our collective support for freedom, as liberals - then there is not such a gap.

[Oakenshield]

55. More similarities than differences.

Most users here are firm supporters of the idea of a secular government. The bible thumping nonsense is dominantly a Republican thing.

[cbayer]

56. Welcome to the religion group, oaken shield.

I believe that most people here are in complete agreement with what you say.

[Oakenshield]

60. Thanks for the welcome.

[LostOne4Ever]

70. I think the recents threads on the WTC cross

And the roadside memorial shows there are some differences in how we see things. Not by a huge amount, but there is obviously a small gap.

I doubt anyone here would dispute that to believers, religion is an important part of their lives. It gives them meaning. While it does vary with the individual believer I think its safe to say it affects a variety of issues and how one sees them. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but rather just as an observation.

Conversely, we non-believers don't have that influencing our thoughts. I can't speak for others, but for me my non-belief is not a big part of my life. Rather, the effect of living in a place where the overwhelming amount of people do believe and have a tendency to inject their beliefs into their myriad of activities (occationally including activities that affect us non-believers) probably influences us quite a bit. What is an innocuous activity to a believer can easily be religious privilege to us.

For example, as this poster said so very eloquently stated on the WTC cross:

Let's start at the beginning: Why was only a cross put up in the first place?

Because the majority did not even think about the other religions in America . . .no one thought: gee, i think that we should make this an ecumenical site for all Americans.

That's the way discrimination works: the majority isn't even aware of other's religions or non-religions. they assume that they should express their feelings in a public place, end of story.

Im not saying this to play up or difference but to point out our difference in perspectives. To some believers, the road side memorial/WTC cross seem harmless and to give comfort. To some non-believers we have to wonder if it wasn't a religious (or more specifically if it wasn't related to the predominant religion) would these things stand? Why not allow other memorials to the 9/11 hijackers? How long do roadside memorials usually last before being taken down, what is the law on such displays, would another group be given the same deference?

Sometimes, you will get some from one group siding with another. These are some who used to be believers/nonbelievers who can understand the other sides viewpoints. There are a rare few who have the ability to really see both sides of the issue and minimize their own bias. There are some who are influenced by other philosophies (liberalism in this case) that take precedence. But overall, i feel belief/lack of belief is such a huge influence even a group like DU can not help but be affected by it.

I was not here during the whole Michael Newdow incident, but given that ~77% of LIBERALS were OPPOSED to changing the pledge back to its pre-1954 incarnation I have a feeling that there was a sizable portion of DU who felt the same way.

I'm agreeing with the OP on this one. Most issues our liberalism will put us in alignment, but if the pledge were challenged there would be a SIGNIFICANT number of DUers would be upset and cause a deep divide between believers and nonbelievers.