Why it's time to stop provoking Christians on DU.

[Inland]

Why it’s time to stop the posts degrading Christianity or provoking Christians on religious grounds. Don't bother telling me it hasn't happened; I can read.

1) You can’t tell Christians they are responsible for “their religion”. If you didn’t know, the Christian church in America is atomized into a thousand separate Christian sects, and they don’t answer to each other. They barely recognize each others’ existence. Some are no bigger than a single church in a single town. It’s easier to place responsibility on the secular as Bush’s fellow Americans than it is to place responsibility on the Christians as fellow Christians.

2) You can’t tell Christians that their religion isn’t valid. Well, you can, but you look stupid. Why? Because telling Christians that Easter eggs and Christmas trees have their origin in pagan rituals is telling them something they already know. Telling them that the concept of the trinity is hard or impossible to understand is something every Christian knows. Telling them that Christians have done terrible things in the past is something every Christian knows. But every flamer that comes across one of these little gems insists on repeating it as if it’s a new discovery that ends faith, which is irritatingly presumptuous and just plain wrong. News alert—I learned all that stuff in the sixth grade from nuns and priests. But every slammer thinks that nobody ever noticed there aren’t any Christmas trees in the bible before they posted the fact on DU. Nothing is an irritating as an instant expert, and add religion and suddenly there is nothing but pissed off people.

3) You can’t tell Christians that their faith is inconsistent with being liberal or being democrats. Well, again, it would be stupid. Martin Luther King. Jesse Jackson. Jimmy Carter. Heck, even John Kerry and Bill Clinton were committed churchgoers. These people found their best in religion.

4) You can’t pretend that an assertion that hits a nerve is the same as an assertion that has validity. There have been a number of threads where the OP is provocative flamebait and the original poster claims that the negative reaction is proof that they have struck at the closed minded preconceptions of Christians—often adding the inconsistent patronizing remark that if they were strong in their faith they wouldn’t be insulted. As Freud should have said, sometimes an insult is just an insult. If a dog bites you, there isn’t any proof of its viciousness if you kicked it first.

5) You can’t argue that a discussion of the validity of Christianity is needed because Christians are imposing their religion on all Americans. Because what you need to discuss is the imposition of religious views, period, not the religious views themselves. Is your goal to convert all Christians to another view and then have THAT view imposed by government? Or is it to make sure nobody’s religious view is imposed by government? People who insist that separation of church and state require a discussion of religion have it precisely ass backward. Separation of church and state is what makes a discussion of the validity of any particular religion unnecessary. But some will reach for any reason to have a flame war.

6) I worry about the amount of flaming that seems to have no other purpose than to stick a finger in the eye of Christians who happen to be here and available for flaming. This is a political forum and if the Christians are here, it’s because they want to be on your side in most political respects. Why you would pick a fight over their religion is beyond me, except for the sad possibility that it hurts them more than if you went to freeper land, where they don't care.

[Caution]

1. persecution persecution victim victim help help

Gimme a break. If you don't like the VERY VERY few people who are supposedly "provoking" Christians put them on your ignore list. It's easy and effective.

[tx_dem41]

2. Where you see persecution and victimhood....

I read a well-reasoned statement.

Its a matter of simple class and respect for fellow members of DU. Unfortunately, I see a lot of the opposite.

[Mandate My Ass]

5. "stupid" "presumptuous" "close minded" If that's well-reasoned

I'd hate to see what the true flamebait would look like.

[Inland]

45. Stupid is as stupid does.

Didn't I back it up?

It is stupid, isn't it--to pretend Christianity is inconsistent with liberal? Didn't citing MLK clinch it for you?

It is presumptuous, isn't it--to pretend that Christians didn't know the first things about their own religion? Didn't the christmas tree illustration clinch it for you?

Let me know.

[LoganW]

123. Oh please

" is stupid, isn't it--to pretend Christianity is inconsistent with liberal"

It sure is. The bible is pro-slavery. Pro-racism, and generally anti-minority. Against free thought. Not to mention the christian god went on killing sprees that would put hitler to shame.

Liberal christians for some reason or another thankfully ignore this. (possibly because they are sane) This, however, does not mean we should ignore the fact the bible was written by many people, or representatives of such people, that today would be considered war criminals, slave holders, child rapists (and rapists in general), and general bigots.

"It is presumptuous, isn't it--to pretend that Christians didn't know the first things about their own religion?"

Nope. We've got sects saying the exact opposite of other sects. Basically liberal christians vs fundamentalist ones. Just calling it like it is.

[Inland]

135. Like you said. Liberal AND christian.

Yes, there are liberal christians. No, the bible isn't liberal.

Because liberal christians--in fact, most christians--don't believe in biblical inerrancy.

Just accept the liberals even though they are christians. They've already figured out what to do the the bible, and don't need you to point out the obvious.

[LoganW]

187. So you cherry pick what you want

out of the bible, yet at the same time use that as your book and I'm just supposed to know what sections your particular sect has chosen to white out?

That's too complex for me. I realize there are liberal christians, and they are on an entirely different level compared to the fundamentalists. However, they still are based on the same teachings the fundamentalists are. A friend took me to her "liberal" church a few weeks ago which was full of other liberal college students. The preacher went on a what I would call a "kindler, gentler, stealth" attack on GLBT people. Same sh*t, different presentation.

[_TJ_]

190. If the guy was attacking GLBT people

he was a fool. Xtian DUers aren't like that - they have enormous
respect for everyone.

[Inland]

208. No, you arent' "supposed" to know. But if you don't, why speak out of

ignorance? If you can't tell the christians apart, then stop making an assumption just because you don't have the time to figure it out. Just leave it alone. I do.

Already, you say they are based on the same teachings--but why call it shit, if it at least in some instances it turns out good?

[LoganW]

238. "In some instances"

it turns out good? Ok I'll give you that. But that doesn't excuse the lives that have been ruined for the negative.

And if I can't tell them apart that's a bad thing. It's funny how so called liberal christians are totally silent while the fundamentalists screw the country over. I can only attribute that to silent approval.

[Inland]

261. Nobody's excusing anything

anyone actually did. But blaming a religion when it turns out good people too merely alienates the good people.

And the liberal christians aren't totally silent. They are right here in DU, moving among you, condemning what is wrong because it is wrong without making it a religious matter.

I suspect you would be surprised by how many DUers are christian when they speak out against the Randall Terrys and the Falwells, and the Dobsons. It might be that you just assumed that they weren't, because you can't tell them apart.

[mzmolly]

230. You are very wrong.

Pick up a book by Bishop Spong, or Marcus Borg and tell me they're into kindler gentler hate.


"Our ministry of reconciliation is hurt by continuing religious prejudice toward homosexual persons.
The Christian ministry of reconciliation to and with the gay/lesbian population, particularly in the urban areas of the western world is today being significantly hurt by the continued expression of uninformed prejudices by some religious leaders among us who are perceived to speak for Christ. In recent years there has been a significant movement back to Christianity among gay and lesbian people.

The Christ embraced those whom the religious authorities of his day defined as outcasts and unclean, and we are called to do the same. The integrity of the Gospel is at risk unless we confront this killing prejudice in our midst and root it out from the body of Christ. For these reasons we want to make certain that you as the leaders of this communion know how strange, disheartening and discouraging it is to these victims of our prejudice when this Gospel is undercut by statements made by Christian leaders in which prejudice and ignorance are enshrined and where the suggestion is made that this rejection by these leaders is part of the Gospel itself. Let me illustrate what I mean."

Read on:

http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/whitepaper.html

Also check out the UCC, it is certainly NOT what you describe above.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_ucca.htm

Congregationalists had an impressive history of opposition to discrimination based on race, gender and sexual orientation. They were the first American mainline/liberal Christian church:

to make the first public declaration against slavery (1700)
ordain a black person (Lemuel Haynes, 1785),
ordain a woman (Antoinette Brown, 1853),
ordain the first openly gay man (William Johnson, 1972), and
ordain the first openly lesbian woman (Anne Holmes, 1977).

Watch the Commercial the UCC was not allowed to air on Television here:

http://www.ucc.org/

Click on "watch our commercial"

I do not attend church often, but if I did I would attend our local UCC.

[LoganW]

235. That's how they work

they put out a friendly image to get you in the door. Sorry, I'm not that naive.

[_TJ_]

241. Those guys are still creeps

Xtians on DU don't think that way. They are not your enemy.

[mzmolly]

242. Our local UCC just ordained an out lesbian pastor.

And, I'm in a small community.

The UCC has Churches which are considered "open and affirming" meaning they WELCOME gays/lesbians.

Check it out.

www.ucc.org

Vistit one if you like. It's vasty different than most churches you've visited I guarantee.

When I went, they had Anti-Bush/Pro-Environment literature set out on tables and prayed for "economic justice and equality." We even had our newly ordained pastor speak about the recent battle in our state to support anti-gay legislation.

It's a far cry from my Grandmothers baptist church. ;)

Not all Christians are biblical literalists who fear and hate those that are not like them.

[Politicub]

203. Are you saying that some aren't "closed minded?"

Because I can give you links to hundreds of posts that are examples of closed-minded thinking that is rooted in one or more flavors of christian theology.

I say if you're so offened by the DU banter, you should probably learn to use the ignore feature. I use it on the uncompromising gun nuts because I have no argument that will convince them otherwise. I don't ignore the christian threads because they can provide for great entertainment on slow days.

[_TJ_]

213. Xtian DUers are...

...some of the most liberal, open-minded people I've ever come
across.

If you encounter any more closed-minded ones spank their
asses for me eh? :D

[Caution]

14. You are right. It is a well reasoned statement..

That doesn't change the fact that the heart of the argument is again the concept of the persecuted Christian, which as anyone who is paying any attention at all can see is obviously not the case. The exception does not prove the rule. There are over 60,000 DU'ers. There are at most 50 DU'ers who are responsible for the type of behavior this post is complaining about. I argue with Christians often, occasionally I go overboard and am willing to admit that. I am not going to jump up and join in and say "oh yeh, man we've really beaten on the Christians here at DU. We must make it so they are afraid to post for fear of a lack of respect in the general community" This is patently absurd. If you feel that a DU'er is unfairly making a personal attack hit the alert button. If you are offended by the manner in which some people (myself included) disparage the beliefs inherent in Christianity, feel free to ignore that user. It isn't rocket science.

[tx_dem41]

29. I agree with your remedies, note that I didn't disregard them in my

...response. What I don't understand is the broadbrush that many DUers wield when dealing with fellow progressives. It makes no rational sense.

BTW, I appreciate your response.

[Tomee450]

311. I agree totally.

I've been appalled at how Christians have been treated on this forum. I stopped reading the Schiavo threads out of disgust. Everyone's religious belief should be respected.

[elehhhhna]

4. Pseudochristians should stop provoking DUers. Just sayin' .

[ashmanonar]

60. that's my take on it.

golden rule.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Caution]

41. Snotty? How about:

<quote>You can’t tell Christians that their religion isn’t valid. Well, you can, but you look stupid.</quote>

I can't make an argument in favor or atheism without looking stupid? Hmmmmmm... Looks like my beliefs are now being insulted.

<quote>irritatingly presumptuous and just plain wrong.</quote>
another disparaging and snotty remark and of course just plain wrong in fact the very examples you speak of cause people to leave the Christian faith every single day. Just because they have no effect on your personally doesn't mean that those of us who don't believe have any less of a right to speak about them.

<quote>You can’t tell Christians that their faith is inconsistent with being liberal or being democrats. Well, again, it would be stupid.</quote>

Sure I can. Marx did. Why can't I?

Your 4th point? right back at you. There are just as many "see I told you so" statements from the other side of the argument.

<quote>You can’t argue that a discussion of the validity of Christianity is needed because Christians are imposing their religion on all Americans.</quote>

I can argue this all day and will do so. I personally believe that the Christian faith as it is practiced in modern America is responsible for much suffering in the world. Who are you to tell me what I can and can't argue? Who is being snotty here?

<quote>I worry about the amount of flaming that seems to have no other purpose than to stick a finger in the eye of Christians who happen to be here and available for flaming.</quote> I can agree with you here. Anyone picking a fight for no reason deserves to be ignored at a minimum or alerted as circumstances warrant. But if you think that I have any less right to speak on my views of religion in general or Christianity in particular then I suggest you read the Constitution because I have every right to say negative things about Christianity and will continue to do so. When and if I make a personal attack and am alerted as a result I am more than happy to recognize my error and apologize, but I will not simply go away and stop criticizing what I see as a fundamentally flawed belief system.

[Inland]

81. Waah, waah, I am being attacked, here's a big long post whinging.

See how much fun that is to get? It is pretty snotty, isn't it?

On to the rest of it.

1) Sorry, but my examples pretty much showed how stupid the arguments get. As far as I am concerned, the atheists and religious can go duke it out in the theology forum, and bore each other to tears with the most obvious of "religious" arguments.

2. Oh, MARX. Didn't know he was a fan of liberal democracy....thanks much, but Marx was as much a liberal democrat as St. Augustine. I'll take King, Kerry and Kennedy.

3. You missed entirely point No. 1. There are a thousand sects, and to argue that "christianity as practiced in America" somehow narrows it down to a meaningful analysis is simply bullshit. But if you can actually get it down to what actual people actually do, you pull out a few people that should be stopped. Not "Christians". Not "American Christians". Then you have politics, not theology.

[Caution]

115. to be clear

I don't care in the slightest bit if you feel that you are being attacked over religion. Personally I feel that religion has been and continues to be the single largest source of suffering there is.

If you think that this should be kept to the theology forum that's fine. I'll keep it there when my government keeps it there. Deal? until then it's a political issue and a huge one. Anyone who disagrees with that is simply delusional.

On Marx. you specifically said "being liberal or being democrats" notice the word OR in there? While I appreciate the modification of an argument in order to make it look like I'm attacking it improperly (nothing that hasn't been done a million times in arguments by a Christian against and Atheist) I stand by my statement. Atheism has been argued by some of the greatest liberal thinkers (whether you agree with Marx or not on anything has nothing to do with the fact that he was a great liberal thinker). I can most certainly argue that the Christian faith is inconsistent with liberalism. You can argue against me. Isn't freedom of speech fun? Rather than tell me what I can and can't argue I suggest you spend some time reading the Constitution.

I didn't miss the point at all. Yes there are a thousand different sects which all follow basic tenets of Christianity. They may argue about a passage here or a passage there and they may even have deeper divisions than that. But at their root they all have a basic core set of values. Nearly all of which I believe have been perverted by those in power and those with a voice. As vi5 said, if you don't like the way people view Christianity today, then it is up to you to change the way that we see it, not to cry persecution every time someone says "Christians are behaving badly in America today"

[Caution]

43. Snotty? How about:

<quote>You can’t tell Christians that their religion isn’t valid. Well, you can, but you look stupid.</quote>

I can't make an argument in favor or atheism without looking stupid? Hmmmmmm... Looks like my beliefs are now being insulted.

<quote>irritatingly presumptuous and just plain wrong.</quote>
another disparaging and snotty remark and of course just plain wrong in fact the very examples you speak of cause people to leave the Christian faith every single day. Just because they have no effect on your personally doesn't mean that those of us who don't believe have any less of a right to speak about them.

<quote>You can’t tell Christians that their faith is inconsistent with being liberal or being democrats. Well, again, it would be stupid.</quote>

Sure I can. Marx did. Why can't I?

Your 4th point? right back at you. There are just as many "see I told you so" statements from the other side of the argument.

<quote>You can’t argue that a discussion of the validity of Christianity is needed because Christians are imposing their religion on all Americans.</quote>

I can argue this all day and will do so. I personally believe that the Christian faith as it is practiced in modern America is responsible for much suffering in the world. Who are you to tell me what I can and can't argue? Who is being snotty here?

<quote>I worry about the amount of flaming that seems to have no other purpose than to stick a finger in the eye of Christians who happen to be here and available for flaming.</quote> I can agree with you here. Anyone picking a fight for no reason deserves to be ignored at a minimum or alerted as circumstances warrant. But if you think that I have any less right to speak on my views of religion in general or Christianity in particular then I suggest you read the Constitution because I have every right to say negative things about Christianity and will continue to do so. When and if I make a personal attack and am alerted as a result I am more than happy to recognize my error and apologize, but I will not simply go away and stop criticizing what I see as a fundamentally flawed belief system.

[Caution]

46. Sorry about the double post

Don't know what happened there

[Jamastiene]

That has happened to me a couple of times today.

I didn't do it, but it happened anyhow.

And you stood your ground on that post btw. I wish I could get as good at it as you are. It's been so long since noonbeliever have been allowed to have any free speech or religious rights that I had forgotten the Constitution gives us any rights. That speaks volumes if you really think about it. Maybe the Christians on this board would do well to respect us and work with us to make it harder for the impossible ones elsewhere to steamroll us every chance they get. Unfortunately, they can't respect our right to disagree or us long enough to even see our point.

[Caution]

122. It's comical that we are told to shut up when we disagree

That we "can't" make an argument. Just because someone doesn't happen to like the argument I make does not make it an improper argument.

I respect people's rights to believe, but I disagree with much of what is written in the Bible and I will continue to be vocal about this regardless of someone coming in and telling me to shut up because my arguments make him/her uncomfortable or because he/she perceives them to be useless arguments. Feel free to do the same. From your post you are an American. It is your right and duty as an American citizen to stand up for yourself.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

299. they can't respect our right to disagree or us long enough to even see our

point.

Which when they do that they deffinatly have something in common with the fundamentalist.

[vi5]

10. "You can’t tell Christians they are responsible for “their religion”."

Really? Why not? I'm smart enough to know the differences between most of the sects of Christianity. If the catholic church is doing something that I disagree with (and there is a lot they do that I disagree with), then why is it wrong to expect that if some portion their membership disagrees with their leadership and what it is doing with THEIR money and their influence, that they do something about it?

One of the things I always say on this subject is when the Episcopalean church had the debate on gay clergy in leadership positions, there was a sizable portion of their members who disagreed with the church's stance and they stood up and did somethign about it. It doesn't matter that I disagreed with them. The fact is that the Episcopal church to which they belong did something they disagreed with and they took an active role to get their voices heard. Why is it wrong to expect the same from liberal members of any denomination of Christianity to do the same? And if they are unwilling to do so and to make their voice heard, why is it not o.k. to express displeasure with that.

Yes, I agree that saying "Christianity sucks!" while in addition to being silly is inaccurate and not specific enough to start a dialogue. But even the most civil of questions lobbed at christians that are anything less than full of praise, are met with "Boo hoo..we're being picked on."

[Inland]

30. Then you are smart enough to distinguish

What do the orthodox have to do with evangelicals that have to do with pentecostals that have to do with Mormons?

Nothing. Some of them are on your side.

Civility tends to be met with civility. Of course, I couldn't point out the specific threads, so if you missed them, you missed them.

[vi5]

39. Well then pose it this way....

Libertarians are different from the religious right, are different from fiscal conservatives are different from socialists, are different from moderate dems, etc. etc. If someone doesn't vote and doesn't get involved in politics but disagrees with something the country is doing in their name and with their tax dollars, should they not be called to task on that disconnect?

So if you are a moderate, liberal catholic and you disagree with what your church is doing, then take the power and get your voice heard. Plain and simple. If you choose to belong to a particular group of people, and your money and your time and your numbers and your support allow them to take specific actions, then I'm sorry you are to some degree responsible for those actions. If you disagree with the church leadership then do something about it. If you disagree with a small vocal minority of your church, then make sure your voice is heard just as loud as theirs. If you don't do these things because you don't care or don't have the time or the energy or whatever, then I have every right to hold you just as responsible.

The same adage holds true for religion as it does for country: "All that is necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." So all that is necessary for evil to flourish within (insert sect of christianity here) is for good (insert sect of christianity here) to do nothing." Plain and simple.

[Inland]

146. You know how people get their voice heard in a christian church?

They leave and found their OWN church.

That's what happens to religious minorities in America. That's why there are a million Christian sects.

Isn't a shame, then, that a Christian in a small, liberal church find himself lumped with the another church they want nothing to do with, by DUers who can't tell the sheep from the goats? Where do they go, if not here?

I don't mind them being here.

[Occulus]

160. The problem is,

the sheep and the goats, in this case, look exactly alike until they proclaim themselves a sheep or a goat.

They don't know on sight if I'm gay or straight; I don't know on sight if they're a Christian who accepts homosexuals or a Christian who demonizes them. Being that I'm gay and the most vocal Christians always seem to demonize me... well, you get my point.

It's, for me, a catch-22. Back into the closet I go?

Not this time.

[Inland]

244. I suppose, but there are only sheep here.

This is the liberal democrat forum. You don't have to go into the closet, if we have any say in the matter.

Any posts slamming Christians or Christianity generally is read by liberal democrat Christians.

Me, I think it can be done by either avoiding theological discussions altogether (as politically divisive and incredibly boring) and ensuring that no post puts Christians and Christianity in the republcan corner. It isn't, and what's more, I don't want it to be in the republican corner. Can't we take the self declared sheep?

[vi5]

182. They don't have to "go" anywhere....

...but nor can they dictate what the rest of us are or are not allowed to criticize. I agree that name calling is ridiculous, but the idea that I can't raise valid criticism of organizations that yield a very large amount of power, simply because it's going to hurt someone's feeling is an absurd request.

There are many sects of Christianity. Some more liberal than others. If someone is a liberal christian and has issues with the conservative direction of their current church, then they can find one that is more suitable for their beliefs and still follow the word of Christ. If they choose not to do that it is within their rights. But I'm not going to refrain from speaking out against conservative groups with a lot of power simply because some nice people in those conservative groups might get offended.

My mother is a devout catholic and also liberal as can be. She doesn't like me criticizing the catholic church because it is the church that she grew up in. She disagrees with most of their current direction. We have a United Church of Christ in our town. I keep trying to get her to go there. She won't because (and she freely admits this) she is just too used to the catholic church and the mass and such and such. So am I to not criticize the catholic church simply because she is too busy to take the time to switch?

[Inland]

247. I dont' have a problem with that.

I really don't. There's a difference between slamming a church for what it does and a different church for what the first church did. It seems obvious to say so, but sometimes the obvious has to be stated.

I merely don't want the UCC or other liberals to feel that their faith is incompatible with liberal or democrat because it isn't. Not because I don't want people to feel bad. It's because it's the truth, and acknowledgeing the truth is good for them and good for me and eventually good for America.

[Mich Otter]

83. The key to the discussion is civility...

It is inevitable that people will disagree on many issues and choose to voice their opinions.
The key to the discussion is civility. We ought to be able to express ourselves and let everyone else express their viewpoints without name calling, insults or any form of denigration aimed at each other but, it is perfectly valid to challenge the ideas.
The problem many people have is they cannot have their ideas challenged without taking it personally.
As an Atheist I feel challenging the beliefs of Theists to be proper behavior, as is their right to challenge my beliefs. The line is crossed though when someone chooses to make a personal attack.

[tx_dem41]

88. Ahh...a small, but rational voice in the wilderness.

I am an Atheist as well, yet I don't even go for challenging Christian beliefs unless they are directly effecting me. I don't see the point. They are personal beliefs.

[Bouncy Ball]

100. You said what I've been trying to say for so long!

As a Christian, I don't care if someone is atheist, because it is a PERSONAL belief. They aren't hurting me, so what do I care?

Now I DO care about the fundamentalists who ARE hurting our country with their religious beliefs.

But anyone else? Naaaah. And that was a good post, civility IS the key. I would never DREAM of saying anything negative about a person for their personal, private beliefs (again unless they are beating me and my country bloody with them).

[Bzzzz]

205. I'm an Atheist as well...

"Belief" destroys the ability to recognize facts. Belief=ignorance.
Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is a Philosophy!

[tx_dem41]

226. Whatever makes you feel good. n/t

[_TJ_]

90. I agree

We all just need to make an effort to get along. :)

And welcome to DU :hi:

[Tux]

128. No kidding

Just pray and Jesus will return to kill all those that oppose you.

It's in the Bible.

[mzmolly]

233. What verse?

I must have missed that one. :eyes:

The Bible is a historical document written by men. Not all Christians are biblical literalists. Many choose to apply reason, and realize that PEOPLE wrote the bible.

[Bouncy Ball]

3. ...

I'm a Christian. I don't get bothered by anything you just wrote about. If someone truly is insulting another person's religious beliefs, you should hit the alert button, it's in the rules.

Beyond that, use ignore or hide thread.

[onager]

15. Posting an opinion in response to a question...

...is not "provoking." If it seems provocative, the problem is most likely a thin skin. Or the problem may be someone who only asked a question to seek re-assurance from the Liberal Amen Corner, not honest opinions. And I see a lot of THAT, especially in the R&T threads.

I'm an atheist. If you ask my opinion of your beliefs and I feel like responding, you're going to get it. If that's a problem, then use "Ignore."

[MollyStark]

111. If a question is provocative and seems insulting it was meant to be so.

That is obvious.

[Jamastiene]

105. A voice of reason, finally.

Someone who realizes this is a discussion board and learns to use ignore . I sometimes check these threads out just to listen for that one person who injects sanity into the discussion. Looks like you have the best attitude about it so far. Wish there were more like you.

[Bouncy Ball]

108. Thanks Jama

that's what those buttons are there for, right? I trust the mods to do their job.

:toast:

[Occulus]

6. Your post is so full of generalizations and broad-brush statements

I don't know where to start, so I'll just say that as a homosexual man, I get to do all those things, and more, and I get a pass to do ALL of it, and there's nothing you or anyone else can say to invalidate that position. I can do this, because according to Christianity, I'm special, and not in a good way.

Fuck 'em.

Don't complain about what *I* have to say about Christians and Christianity, pal. I have plenty of good reasons to want them as bloody fucking far away from me as possible- including doing and saying everything you bitched about above.

Like I said, I get a pass to do all of it, and you can't complain. Period.

[_TJ_]

18. Wrong

Just because you're gay, you don't automatically get a free pass to
act like a jerk.

The Christians who frequent here would never step on you like
that. There's no need to step on them.

[Inland]

19. Declaring what IS christianity doesn't get you a pass.

It's just wrong. Since you don't know where to start, let's beging with No. 1: there are thousands of sects, so there is no need to paint with such a broad brush.

Somebody is consecrating those gay marriages. They are christian churches. Do you hate them too? How much of a pass do you have to hate?

[Occulus]

96. Ok, fine. What does Christianity mean to me?

The only time Christians affect me is when they use their book to try to victimize me. Therefore, Christians are something I avoid like plague.

I know a couple "nice" ones. However, I never know if that's an act to get me into a spot where I can be cornered, or if it's genuine.

I. Never. Know.

Therefore, I must for my own personal safety and well-being assume that all Christians are like that until they prove otherwise. As I said below, as a group, that will take decades of work.

It's a bit like a white boy walking through Lonyo St., or Livernois Ave., or Wyoming Ave. in Detroit, or a black man driving through Mobile, AL. YES, you can say you're not racist, but what if you know the majority of people around you probably are racist? In the first case, you might get mugged, beat, or shot, and in the second case, it would be driving while black, in which exactly the same thing could happen.

I'm not the one who has something he needs to prove. Not when it's me their ire is directed toward.

[_TJ_]

104. Xtians on here just aren't like that

When did a xtian Duer ever use their book to victimise you?

[Occulus]

119. I'm not saying that's the case.

What I'm saying is, after such a long time hearing it over and over and over again, Christians who don't believe such will have to go to great lengths- decades worth of work- to undo the damage.

It's not going to happen overnight, and it's not going to happen by pointing out one here and one there. It's going to take a massive, long-term, group effort to fix what's been done to me and people like me by Christians and Christianity.

And through it all, I still believe in God and His mercy. So I guess, in that most important sense, those who would use their religion as a sword haven't had the desired effect. Rather, the reverse.

[MollyStark]

117. So what about gay christians?

Are they covered in your hate all Christians book of rules?

[Occulus]

125. Not really; that's one important way to effect change.

But like I've been saying, it's going to take a long time. I, for one, am not particularly inclined to work with them, because I just don't desire exposure to overt demonization by others of the same religion.

If some gay people want to consider themselves Christians, wonderful, but I hope they're prepared to deal with the kinds of things I'm talking about. For my part, I've dealt with it enough to last a lifetime.

[Inland]

228. You know, I guess even that isn't a religious slam.

Maybe a paranoid one, but you aren't saying that Jesus didn't exist or that God is dead. You are just saying that all Christians are out to get you, or at least enough so that you have to watch your back.

I can't argue with that. I don't know how physically safe you are in places where, eg, a gay man is killed and his corpse left to find out of a feeling of impunity. I don't know how much of that is the god hates fags mentality as opposed to just plain homophobia and hate, but it's got to be some. At least, it adds to the feeling of impunity.

But DU, and the democratic party, isn't that place. No more than you can doubt the straight men here on their, well, not-gay-beating up anyway.

[tuvor]

40. My gay friends don't seem to have the same problem with me.

Maybe they're not as quick to judge all who call themselves "Christian" as you seem to be.

If you want to shut yourself off from a decent segment of society, one that doesn't get the press and attention that the religious nuts do, it's your loss if I do say so myself.

[Occulus]

76. Aha! Very predictable.

All three (so far) of the responses to my post condemn what I have to say, even though gays are often victimized by "Christians".

Maybe it's the thirty years I've been told to be silent and respectful of people who routinely say they want to kill or imprison me that did it, or maybe it's that so-called "good" Christians aren't even willing to stand up during the sermon and decry what they see as injustice.

A great shout of "hypocrite" on Sunday would be a welcome change, but oh, wait- we all have to be respectful.

So, I have to be respectful to Christianity as a whole, but some Christians can be disrespectful to me?

Sorry, I'had it with that. You want to say you're not like Christians who demonize gays, want to arrest and/or kill them? Fine.

Prove it.

What I heard in the responses was "just because you're black/Jewish/Muslim/female/Wiccan/atheist doesn't give you the right to condemn a religion that says it's ok for you to be a slave/didn't say a thing while six million of you burned/wants to "kill them all in the name of the Lord"/wants you to stay home and make babies/says you should be condemned to death for your beliefs/says you, and all of the above, are going to hell".

Sorry. You "Good Christians", or "real Christians", or whatever it is... you ALL have a LOT of proving to do.

Decades worth. If you want to try, that's fine, but you will have my suspicion for a very long time and it will take a lot of work on your parts- decades worth of work- to convince me.

I'm not saying you can't- I'm saying that the damage is so vast at this point, it will take a loooooong time to fix.

[tuvor]

113. I'm sorry, who's the one with the broad brush again?

I'm not going to accept your stereotyping, and I refuse to prove anything to you. I doubt I could anyway; your mind is clearly made up, even though you've never met me.

I'm grateful for the friendship of many people who happen to be gay. And I know it's reciprocated. I hope you find yourself in the same position one day.

[Occulus]

136. Want to know who made up my mind?

Falwell. Robertson. Phelps. Reed. Delay. Kennedy. etc.

If you decide you can't counter that, you're part of the problem. Someday, if you and people like you work hard enough, I'll likely change my mind, but that won't happen until action is taken on your part.

I have no voice to do so; you do. If you want to change my mind, do so, but know it will take a lot of time and a lot of work.

[_TJ_]

143. Those guys are all assholes

Why are you pissed at xtian Duers for the action of those creeps?
There isn't an xtian DUer who would support them!

[Occulus]

152. I *know* that.

The point is, it is those people who have given me cause to view everyone who claims to be a Christian with suspicion. Is it a broad brush? Yes, in response to a broad brush.

But like painting with a broad brush, there are spot and streaks where the paint didn't take. Those, however, are few and far between. This place, I'll grant, is an enclave; a sanctuary, if you will.

The rest of the world isn't like that, and for my own safety, I have to be suspicious until it is proven that change has been made.

It will take a very great deal of work over a long period of time to fully convinve me that Christianity no longer condemns me for being me. That just hasn't happened yet, even though there are Christians "out there" who wouldn't do the things I'm afraid of.

[tuvor]

210. I can't change your mind.

Not as long as you lump me in with that group.

I consider myself innocent until proven guilty. If you hold me under suspicion when I claim to be a Christian, it's up to YOU to prove otherwise. Until then, don't presume to judge me.

[Occulus]

218. You don't understand. If I were to meet you in public,

I would have to have suspicion, as a matter of my personal physical and physhological well-being. I don't know, in public, that you aren't the Christian who's willing to haul me off and beat me to death just for being gay.

Until Christianity and Christians prove to me that I don't need to be that afraid of it and them, I must lump them all together, because it could be harmful or even deadly to me not to.

This place isn't the public in general. Out there, things are a very different story.

[Misunderestimator]

272. No church I've been to in the past would every marry me in it...

Most churches I spent time in in my childhood, singing my heart out, going to Sunday school, volunteering... wouldn't accept my homosexuality as anything but a "sin"... so until Christian denominations accept me and stop reducing me to a worse sinner than anyone else in the congregation, I don't feel it at all necessary to accept them. Here's MY generalization about it: Good Christians, I admire... Bad Christians I abhor. Don't tell me who to criticize.

[tx_dem41]

101. Wow, with all the hostility apparent in your post...

it looks like the "Christians" you are speaking of are definitely having their effect on you, and its not a good effect, IMO.

I just ignore people who proselytize to me. I see no need to return it with hostility. It throws them off when I show them that what they say has no effect on me at all.

[Occulus]

109. Been there, and done that.

I know from personal experience that ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Rather, it will only embolden them to try harsher, and yet harsher, tactics.

Proselytization is one thing. Demonization is another thing entirely.

[Jamastiene]

133. We have been singled out as the ONLY ONES

who can be accused of sinning simply because of who we are. I have argued that point for a long time now too. If I want into a room and someone else in my hideous small town has just found out I am gay and asks me about it, I tell them yes I am. I have to then listen to how I am going to hell yadda yadda yadda. And of course this must have some sort of animal like predatory attacking scent to it, because then other people come and join the conversation against me. I get to stand there listening to them telling me how I am sinning and I'm not even having sex right then. They don't even know when the last time I actually had sex was yet I am sinning and going to hell simply because I am gay. I'll never quite understand that.

[Occulus]

144. That's some of what I'm trying to say.

Until Christians who believe otherwise find a way to stop that, I'm going to have suspicions whenever I know someone claims to be a Christian. I'll never know whether or not they're eventually going to target me until extravagant action is taken by the Christians who don't act like that.

[_TJ_]

155. Xtians on DU are not anti-gay

There is no need for anyone to tar all xtians with the same brush

[Jamastiene]

229. The Bible singles us out special.

Many Christians follow suite and make our lives a living hell. Once that has been going on for a while, some of us begin to look at the idea of hell as much like earth.

[_TJ_]

245. there's a lot of offensive shit in the bible

Even xtian DUers accept that. There are very few biblical
literalists on this board.

[readmoreoften]

219. I also don't understand why Christians on DU get upset

at GLBT people who have been bashed and beaten and discriminated against by people who claim to share the same philosophy as themselves. I know that there are good Christians and that there are gay Christians. Almost all of the Christians at DU are allies to GLBT people or at least like to think of themselves that way.

But I do not accept the LONG hijacking of threads by supposedly 'oppressed' Christians on DU whenever someone makes a remark about the absolutely heinous laws that the Christian Right are trying to effect in this country.

Example Comment: Catholics in Michigan have successfully pushed to pass a law that allows doctors to discriminate against GLBT people and women.

Example Response: Not ALLLLLLLLLLL Catholics in Michigan. You're trying to demonize us!

Listen, to gay people who are staring down the gun barrels of murderous Christians (yes, some of the RR believe in capital punishment for homosexuality, they want us dead) who have had friends who have had bible verses chanted over them while they were beaten into the hospital; who have tried to care for gay children who have tried to or are contemplating suicide because God doesn't love them; or who have been told by countless Christians that they are equal to murderers; or maybe who have just read the Pope's recent book saying that gays are part of The New Ideology of Evil....
maybe we don't want to hear you whine about how we should step on eggshells about how oppressed and misunderstood you are.

Do you know when I respect a DU Christian? When he/she/ze says "I'm a Christian, and you know what? I understand that the zealots of my religion have done horrible things to GLBT people and women and I understand why you are so afraid of us, but I've been working really hard to fight these bastards and I just want you to know that I'm standing by your side and I'm going to fight beside you!"

That's when I listen to DU non-GLBT Christians. But if you come at me when I say that I'm persecuting you, you sound suspiciously like all those Right Wing Christians out there who are whining about how gays are about to send them to the lions.

So THANK you UCC and Unitarians and that one white southern baptist preacher in Louisiana and Dignity and MCC, and thank you for understanding when I say "THE FUNDIES ARE AT IT AGAIN".... I don't mean you.

[Occulus]

225. YOU got my point exactly.

Thank you for saying it the way I seemingly couldn't.

[Jamastiene]

253. And thank you for pointing that out. n/t

[Demobrat]

153. The person who donated the money to get you your first DU star

is a Christian. Just FYI.

[Occulus]

170. And good on them for doing so.

That's one small example of the changes that need to occur, but donating a star doesn't make me feel safe from Christianity in general out in public. I can't hold my partner's hand in public because I know there will be some Christian there to ruin my day.

And yes, in my experience, it's always been a Christian doing so, star-donaters notwithstanding.

I thank that person, but it doesn't make me safe in public and, if the ones I'm talking about had their way (and they're getting closer and closer to that all the time), it wouldn't even make me safe in private. Not that that has happened, mind you, but they'd like it to.

Not all of them, just the ones who would do so. But the ones who wouldn't, this online location excepted, have a lot of damage to fix.

I can't help with that; in fact, in some ways, support of such Christians willing to side with me and people like me may actually end up being counterproductive. It is upon those who would change their religion's views of homosexuals et al to effect that change and, as I've repeatedly stated, it will take a lot of time and a lot of work.

[_TJ_]

189. Can't you cut xtian DUers some slack?

They aren't gonna harm you or force anything on you.

[Occulus]

198. Like I said, I *know* that doesn't happen here.

But it does happen out there, Christians like the ones here are they only ones who can counter it, they are few and far between "out there", and it's going to take a great deal of effort on their part to do so. Until then, in public, mind, every time I learn someone is a Christian I have to, haveto haveto haveto have a degree of suspicion of their motives until I know Christians in general won't, or don't, demonize me for being me.

This place is the exception, not the rule.

[Name removed]

240. Deleted message

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

[_TJ_]

7. Amen brother

Testify! :7

Seriously though, it is a good thing to have a care for
other people's cherished beliefs. :)

[countryjake]

50. I'm no Christian, but I can agree with you...

Dividing people along religious lines is the tool of the right-wing & those extremist fanatics that condemn & wish to oppress are not practicing any true form of Christianity...they're viewed as a distressing problem in that community even more so than in political ones.

Religious beliefs are private & personal, not open to attack...it's their politics that suck & that's what needs to be pointed out. Christian-Fascism is NOT the same as Christianity!

It's our job to make that distinction.

[wtbymark]

9. i only bash fundies and fundimentalist views

i dont see any fundies in here

[seabeyond]

16. kids went to fundie school for years, i love my fundies

each and everyone of them, and i am going to call them on what they are doing in the name of christ..............each and every time

[Inland]

23. Same here.

I think it's a distinction worth making, along with the concept that individuals do what they do.

[mattclearing]

11. Is there a specific instance you're referring to?

There is a lot of bashing of the Christian right here, but I don't think there are very many "Christian-haters" on DU.

But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Just don't forget to include a link.

[Inland]

34. Yes, but under the rules, I can't link.

For one thing, they tend to disappear by the mods. But I can't refer you to one specifically, since I understand its' against the rules.

If you saw one of the two threads on easter history, that was the most recent.

[FredScuttle]

103. "they tend to disappear"

ah, therein lies the rub....if offensive posts "disappear" as you say because the mods are doing their jobs, where's the beef? Do you want bring on "precognitive" mods (ala Minority Report) that will root out offensive posts before they make their way to your screen?

[seabeyond]

12. i am one of thosing mouthing off about christians, and i am a

christian. and i am telling all christians that they have a responsibility to mouth off about their christianity, because we are walking away from jesus, doing horrible things in the name of jesus. adnd if you arent horrified as a christian, and dont speak out as a christian, then in your christianity, what does that make of you

i say this respectfully

and without reading you post

[gratuitous]

13. I tend to ignore most of the more obvious posts

But you're right about the baiting you mention in your second point. There seems to be no shortage of folks who "prove" that Chrisitianity is just out-and-out beyond the pale due to some fact they've just discovered.

For the most part, I simply ignore the bashing posts as the silly irrelevancies they are. Every now and then I get my Irish up and will engage some of the more ignorant posts, if for nothing else than my own practice in spelling out my beliefs and how they inform my political ideas.

It's distressing, to be sure, but if it wasn't religion or some semblance of religion, the bashers would move on to something else. Don't feed the trolls (overmuch), pick your battles and the issues you want to stand up for, and presume that someone has hauled out the big, broad brush but that they don't necessarily intend to be speaking to you personally.

[MrModerate]

17. I agree. I see little benefit here . . .

I'm not a religionist, but it doesn't bother me that others are. In fact, if you look at the stats, a large proportion of Americans consider themselves religious and for most folks that means christian.

We're talking -- or should be -- about using our power to take our country back from wicked shits who really deserve to be flamed (and I'm talking literally rather than figuratively).

We need friends, not more enemies.

Also, while some of you may be able to parse the difference between "christian" and "Xtian" I ain't among them and neither are most other people.

If religion aggravates you, or you've had a terrible experience at the hands of some religious person, or you think because Schimpanski and his ilk profess to be christian, or you think the major wackos we decry every day at DU are truly representative of American christianity, try working on a little perspective, distance, and (to be perfectly cynical) self-interest.

Christians are a great reservoir of liberal feeling that we need to tap.

[RevCheesehead]

20. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.

Nominated. And I hope people read what you posted.

[Mizmoon]

21. Inland, I learned long ago that DUers want you to agree with the hive

or else. They don't like Christianity, therefore you can't either or you're a(n) (insert insult here).

I stick around for the nice connections I've made with some real good folk. There are some around, you just have to keep your eyes peeled.

Peace :hi:

[Bouncy Ball]

33. Way to make a broad generalization, Mizmoon.

"They" don't like Christianity? So ALL of DU doesn't like Christianity, huh?

[Mizmoon]

49. Sure seems that way

when there is a Christian post.

Hey, I haven't stepped foot in a church in years, but I know what I see when I come here. But I suppose I shouldn't believe my lyin' eyes ...

[Bouncy Ball]

53. You made a generalization.

Some DUers ARE Christians. So how can DU as a whole be a Christian-bashing site?

I'm so sick of this thin-skinnedness. This persecution complex. If it's offensive, hit alert. If the same poster does it one too many times, they're gone. End of story.

Another guy posted a way better response down toward the end of this thread (his avatar is a light bulb). I like what he had to say about this whole thing.

[Mizmoon]

58. check this out

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3370710&mesg_id=3370727

:eyes: Do you think that image is nice? Do you see lots of them like it around here?

[Bouncy Ball]

66. I really don't care about that.

I'm a Christian and his sign doesn't bother me in the least. Why? Because I don't consider myself to be simple-minded. I know that poster and I know he is aiming his barbs at fundies, not me.

And if it bothers you so much, why not hit alert and send a little not to the mods explaining why your sensibilities are bothered by it? Then they can take action if they see fit.

It's the false Christians alternately ignoring and perverting Jesus' teachings for their own hateful ends who really piss me off.

[0007]

174. Yes, you've been here a real long time and know all, eh?

[heidler1]

22. I wonder if the fact that Bush is expanding Christian influence might be

the reason that Liberal/Democrats appear to be justly concerned about a power shift toward Christianity?

[Inland]

38. Yes. But see my point #5.

[heidler1]

92. The Bush pro Christian policy is real.

Many herein do not like that policy. They have every right to attack it any way they can. This will continue as long as Bush is in there promoting the R/R's side of the issue. There is nothing sacred about Bush's policies including this one and to try and make it taboo will help Bush and it won't work to the Democrats advantage. The hypocrisy of the Bush Christian mantra is one of the GOP's biggest vulnerability issues and it will continue to be exploited. I'm sorry if this effects you personally, but look at the motive.

[_TJ_]

98. Nobody has any problem with that

I'm sure 99% of the xtians on here would agree with you.

BTW, welcome to DU :hi:

[Lars39]

24. If it's that bad, just use the alert button on the thread or post.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

25. I recommend "Christianist"

The same way the MSM uses "Islamist" to pretend they are not being offensive to all Muslims. Those of us who don't have a clue about either religion need space to analyze both sets of radical clerics. Our rage comes from not being INTERESTED in doing this analysis, having the choice thrust on us. I'm actually more interested in Islam as a faith than Christianity--from the outside, and in sum, it seems to make people beautiful rather than ugly--so emotionally I'm less angered at having to pay attention to them. American Christianity is a huge bore to me and it is mostly an irritant when events and, especially, politicians force me to think about it.

Look, I've never "flamed" Christians on DU though I have been known to point out that their myth is a vampire story, technically. However, I think that people who are in love with an imaginary friend should go into the world expecting fairly crushing language from whomever they encounter that happens not to share the love. This language is exactly what we're fighting for, among other things--the good, the bad, and the ugly, we need to protect all speech.

Christianity is the only religion that is, at present, being rammed down America's throat at gunpoint. I'm sure if it was Buddhists choking us, we would be flaming Buddha here.

I mean, JESUS CHRIST, there are probably flamers in chatrooms about knitting. People with kind, gentle, easily broken hearts should stick to Church and stay off the web.

[Inland]

95. I've used "piest" . But are christians unwelcome?

People who believe less in religion and more in using a religion as an political subset.

And as for fairly crusing language, I don't know why anyone who shares political beliefs should get crushed. So they believe in a fairy in the sky. And it isn't merely gentleness that makes them leave--plenty of people have thick skins for insults of all sorts of jabs, eg, I give as many as I get. I am afraid they will leave becaue they fell politically un

But the bottom line is...are christians liberal democrats allowed? Or does the "crushing" come from a sincere belief they should just go away? I believe the former, but I think some are giving the idea of the latter.

[MollyStark]

157. Did you just say I believe in a fairy in the sky?

Now I am confused.

[Inland]

269. No, I was using another's statement.

I don't know fairies in the sky.

[Bouncy Ball]

26. Dammit, now I'm starting to get suspicious about all these

"stop persecuting us Christians" threads.

WTF is going on here? USE THE ALERT BUTTON if it is warranted.

[RevCheesehead]

106. Bouncy, it just ain't that simple anymore.

You've seen the threads - they're even in the lounge.

I can usually ignore most of it. But when I see someone post "what's with all this fuckin' Jesus shit?" I get offended. Come on - don't tell me this person didn't have a clue that this past week was Holy Week and Easter. They knew damned well what they were doing - putting up an inflammatory post for all the world to see.

I get pissed when I'm in the midst of a good discussion, and someone comes in and pees all over my cornflakes. I get pissed when people claim that all clergy are money-grubbing assholes. I get pissed when people tell me that my faith is a mental illness. I get really pissed when people tell me that because "Christians" do this, I am somehow personally responsible for their behavior.

I am tired of people assuming that I am not doing anything at all to combat the fundies. I am. I am doing a hell of a lot more than people realize, but I don't feel it necessary to parade it around like a giant cruicifix, for all to see (it's called hypocrisy).

It's about mean-spiritedness, and lack of simple courtesy and respect,
and I'm sick to fucking death of it.

[Bouncy Ball]

132. Why isn't it as simple as hitting alert anymore?

I've seen all those things you describe. But why can't you hit alert?

If I had seen that "what's with all this fucking Jesus shit?" I'd have hit alert on it and not even responded to the thread. And I'd make some assumptions about the maturity level of whoever posted something like that, make a mental note, move on. Maybe put them on ignore if it got bad enough.

You have every right to feel the way you feel. I just don't understand why alert, ignore and hide thread isn't good enough.

[RevCheesehead]

159. Are you serious? There aren't enough mods to handle it!

There are rules here, which we are expected to follow.

The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.

and more specifically:

With regard to religion (or the lack thereof), Democratic Underground is a diverse community which includes Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, and others. All are welcome here. For this reason, we expect members to make an extra effort to be sensitive to different religious beliefs, and to show respect to members who hold different religious beliefs. Members are permitted to discuss whether they agree or disagree with particular religious beliefs, provided that they do so in a relatively sensitive and respectful manner. But members should avoid posting broad-brush bigoted statements about people who hold specific religious beliefs. Members should avoid highly provocative postings, such as comparing religion to fairy tales or mental illness, or arguing that religion (or the lack thereof) is the source of most of the world's problems.

[Bouncy Ball]

191. I know the rules.

And if you think there aren't enough mods to handle it, what's your opinion on what this particular thread has done about the problem? Do you think the really half-baked totally immature people who just want to insult people of all religious beliefs were convinced by it and said "you know I have to stop that now?"

I don't think they were. That's all I'm saying.

[madison2000]

305. I alerted many many times yesterday when things in the

lounge were really offensive and many people were posting threads mocking easter. Nobody responded. The thread I posted asking about groups being ostracized at DU (and I had no idea that over 40% would say Christians) ended up being a Christian bashing thread that went on all day and into the evening. (Other threads were posted saying where can I go to get away from religion threads, like the very mention of Easter was offensive.)

I was offended, as were others, but the other posters didn't give a damn and neither did the moderators. This morning there was continued hostility in the Lounge- after a while you get the message that Christians are not welcome there unless they are willing to be attacked and ridiculed, and then further attacked and ridiculed if they complain about it.

I enjoyed the Lounge and contributed to it. But I've never seen such a low level of civility as yesterday in the DU Lounge- my opinion of some posters has been lowered substantially. I won't be back.

[Silverhair]

284. Doesn't the "Sky Taxi" editorial violate DUs own rules? NT

[_TJ_]

167. I'm with ya RevCheesehead

I'm an atheist but I don't need to fuck with anyone's private
beliefs. We just need to have a little courtesy for each other.

[madison2000]

315. AMEN, Sister!

:yourock:

[Tux]

140. But

Jesus said they'd be persecuted by the Roman Empire for all time. Of course, if they realized most of that was for the people at the time, we'd be better off.

It's in the Bible.

[RevCheesehead]

176. please show me where the Bible says that.

Gospel, chapter, and verse, please.

[Tux]

224. Like I own that "book"

But it's yelled out here enough that I know Jesus was living during a time Jews were under control of the Roman Empire. He was speaking to people 2000 years ago in that context of persecution. He didn't say it would be for all time or anything. "Rendure unto Ceasar..." says it all. No Ceasar for over 1000 years yet people still think that the Roman EMpire is alive and well based on their "persecutions" aka my neightbor ain't no Christian.

[RevCheesehead]

243. what the heck are you saying??

You made a glaring statement about what's in the bible, then you say you don't own it, you're just repeating what you've heard, then you're saying you didn't make that statement?

"Render unto Caesar" is a reference to paying taxes.

I'm wondering where you got the notion that Jesus said we would be under Roman occupation for 2000 years. Because that's just bullshit.

Persecutions are something entirely different. To which passage on martyrdom do you refer? Do you really want to discuss martyrdom, or do you have a different reason for dragging the Bible into it?

[JVS]

320. It is good form to read and be certain of something before citing it

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[WilliamPitt]

28. How about "Because provoking people is an asshole thing to do"

[Inland]

99. Didn't I say that?

I thought it was the big idea, but I write like baseball: I have a huge wind up before I pitch.

[seabeyond]

31. does jesus really need defending. to be so coddled

and protected that we cant even talk about the horrors that are being done in the name of jesus. that we are to keep our mouth shut. that is part of the problem, the liberal christians keeping mouth shut, now look what our nation is doing in the name of jesus. take a look towards florida. and you are suggesting that we not NOT talk about it.

that is sad

and i have three christian friend that tell me to ignore the stuff and see only the beauty, be blind..........

no thank you

i have more faith, that we are a better people, and we can truly honor christ without the glorification of hate

and if i become the bad guy, because i have such faith in man, then, well whatever

[tuvor]

51. Huh? "Defending Jesus"? Where do you see that remark? n/t

[Inland]

52. I don't expect you to be quite about horrors, period.

It merely doesn't lead to a discussion about the validity of Christianity as a religion.

What does speakikng out against the fundie circus have to do with a discussion of whether Jesus was God or Man? Not much, according to DU christians.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Bouncy Ball]

35. Why are you repeating yourself down here?

[seabeyond]

36. dont provoke christians

but allow me to call em all three year olds

do you understand the hypocrisy. if you are going to hold up your christianity for all to see, i would suggest you walk the talk

again, not being mean, just find this particularly funny

[tx_dem41]

56. So, since you stated that you are a Christian in an earlier post above...

that would make you a three-year old as well? It appears your broadbrush is back-splattering on you.

[BiggJawn]

37. So I should "bite my tongue" and keep *MY* beliefs to myself?

But the thin-skinned "christians" aren't expected to.

Yeah, right, I'm a callous, "Hardened-Heart", "Back-slding" Atheist, so my opinion or beliefs (and yes, I consider LACK of belief to be a valid "belief", too) Don't count.

Piss on it, Inland. What you're admonishing me to do is to keep my mouth shut and let the TaliBorn-Again run rough-shod over the land because some "Good Christian" is hurt that I called the Talibs "Christian". Hey, I didn't name 'em they named themslves.

"You can’t tell Christians they are responsible for “their religion”."

The hell I can't. SOMEBODY has to clean that mess up, would you prefer we Atheists do it?

"If you didn’t know, the Christian church in America is atomized into a thousand separate Christian sects, and they don’t answer to each other. They barely recognize each others’ existence. Some are no bigger than a single church in a single town. "

No Shit? Uh, would that include the little 50-member churches who's member go around telling people "MY pastor say if you don't go to OUR church, then you're learning False Doctrine, and yer gonna go to HELL!"

Yeah, I know about them. a THOUSAND seperate sects, ALL claiming to possess the One True Word.

Can YOU see how utterly ridiculous that is?

Sorry, Inland, your complaint has been "noticed in the building". you know where the "Alert" button is , should I write something you just can't ignore.

[Inland]

129. Just the theology lecture nobody needs or wants.

You started out with a point--that religion is being forced on us--and end up with a declaration that I should notice how ridiculous Christianity is.

Sorry, I don't give a shit. If I thought arguments about the validity of religion was worth a damn, I would be in a different forum.

My point is this. One of those thousands of little churches has a congregation that believes everythign you do except for the Jesus thing.

Can you shut up long enough for them to vote for all the things you believe in, or do you need to tell them their God is false?

[BiggJawn]

214. Wrong, wrong, wrong...

"...end up with a declaration that I should notice how ridiculous Christianity is."

If you can't tell the difference between Christianity and Denominationalism, I'm not going to waste my time on you.
I was hoping for you to see the irony in Denominations, but I guess the chip on your shoulder was blocking the view. One thing I would ask, is that you not put words under my fingers, OK? I may THINK Christianity is ridiculous, but (for once) I did NOT write that.

"My point is this. One of those thousands of little churches has a congregation that believes everythign you do except for the Jesus thing."

I'm SO sorry. I missed that. I thought your point on the "thousands of little congregations' was that it would be impossible for "Mainstream Chrisitanity" to police them and purge the TaliBorn-Agains from them, so we may as well learn to live with them...

"Can you shut up long enough for them to vote for all the things you believe in, or do you need to tell them their God is false?"

Whatever that is supposed to mean. FWIW, I can't think of ANY of them that would "vote for all the things I believe in", since I've seen some of the little "Voter's Guides" that get distributed to churches.

Not a THING in any of them I support.

[Lerkfish]

42. although I agree with your well stated post...

I don't think posting another thread about it really helps.

The people that want to bash DU liberal christians, or more correctly bash wingnut christians and lump DU liberal christians in the same group....are not going to be won over by a thread like this: it will only confirm their misperceptions.

Frankly, I don't think those folks are really reachable. They have a lot of negative baggage about religion...much of it justified, but which prevents them from seeing a christian as anything other than the negative image they have in their scopes. I understand where they are coming from, I understand much wrong has been done in the name of christianity, but I also don't view them as paragons of tolerance concerning religion.

So.....whereas I think a thread like this probably feels good to write, is well stated and makes good points, I don't think the intended audience will choose to be enlightened by it, instead I think it will just enlarge the blinders they wear. It really only preaches to the choir, and we already KNOW that DU liberal christians have to slog through a great deal of well..slog...to get to anything resembling a respectful discussion of religion.

But I think the same is true of ANY message board on the net. I've noticed it for years. You either get slammed for the sins of the wingnut christians, as if you committed the same crimes, or you get blamed for not magically changing them into liberal christians. Both stances are very limited and anyone who has them will not listen to the fact that liberal christians are here at DU as brothers, and that we cannot "fix" the conservative christians anymore than secular DUers can "fix" Ann Coulter.

So...I throw up my hands at the whole issue...I think its a sisyphean effort to be accepted as a liberal AND a christian to some people, so I dont' think threads like this, albeit honest and accurate, accomplish anything at all.

[RevCheesehead]

82. well, there are certain rules and expectations here at DU.

And the updated rules are very clear about religion. You may NOT attack with a broad sweep at religion.
link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Just because someone has had a bad experience with Christianity, it does NOT give them permission to spew hatred at every Christian, or every post about Christianity.

I have many friends who are gay. But if one of them beat me, stole from me, and treated me like a worthless piece of shit, I would be angry at that person, not all gay people. And my personal experience with this particular person does not give me permission to come on DU and make broad sweeping, hate-filled statements about homosexuality.

OK, then, let's broaden it: Let's say (for the sake of discussion) that EVERY homosexual I have ever met has been a vile, worthless piece of shit. Every single one of them.
Does this give me permission to come here, and tear down homosexuality at every chance I get? No.
Can't I argue that "my opinions are just as valid as yours are," too? No.
Can't I say, "if you don't like my statements, you can just hit the alert button?" Of course not.

Substitute any minority, any physical characteristic... the premise is still the same. And the rules are clear, for those who read them.

[_TJ_]

85. Bravo - well said !!

Tarring everyone with the same brush is an activity of
the lazy minded.

[Lerkfish]

236. Again, I agree with the OP, but I also agree this thread will not

accomplish a meeting of the minds, or increased tolerance.

Unfortunately, realistically, you have to accept at some point that we cannot change another person's attitude...that has to come from them. If they insist on intolerance, sure, we can quote rules to them, or report them or whatever, but it will not CHANGE them to point out their intolerance.

that usually has the opposite effect...you convince them that you're someone they prefer to not tolerate.

it doesn't matter if they're wrong, or mistaken or have overgeneralized and used a broad brush to lump you in with people you also despise...

I'm learning this, to my extreme sadness. You cannot prevent someone from being intolerant or force them to adopt enlightenment.

and, although I think whenever someone accuses you of being thin-skinned, that's a passive aggressive attempt to give themselves permission to denigrate you.....I must agree that reacting to their intolerance only sparks more intolerance, so you've accomplished nothing.

I try to simply correct them, if I feel the need, or simply ignore them.

The really sad thing is, they alienate a group of people who are on their own side, but the same thing happened here when people started arguing against supporting gays...saying that our tolerance of gays in the big tent meant we lost the election...that was horrifically intolerant, inaccurate, and served to ostracize many great and wonderful DUers who were fighting alongside for no reason.

why can't we all just get along? If I, a liberal christian, can tolerate everyone else here at DU, I would hope at some point along the road they would return the favor.

Until then, though, I see no value in complaining. Instead correct.

[RevCheesehead]

251. Really?

I have an expectation that the members of DU have read the rules, and have agreed to follow them. If someone is breaking those rules, I will alert on the post.

Most of the time, I ignore the stuff. But this post is a chance to let y'all know that I see what's going on, and even though I've ignored most of the childish shit, I'm sick of it.

Besides, liberal Christians have learned the hard way that simply ignoring the opposition does not make them go away, or their cruelty any less severe. (Yet, we are told that we are responsible for their behavior??)

Tolerance begins at home. Mr. Skinner has set up a board on which it is expected that people will be tolerant and respectful of one another. That means that NONE of us has the right to post "Whatever I damned well want to post."

[_TJ_]

255. You da man RevCheesehead !

I hope I never get on your bad side :7

[RevCheesehead]

304. (looking down at her own breasts)

Um, I don't think so - but thanks, anyways. :hi:

[Lerkfish]

256. by all means, report offenders if you are so inclined...

I'm referring to whether a thread of this type ACCOMPLISHES anything but to galvanize the opposition and preach to the choir.

That's a separate issue from whether people follow rules or should be reported for infractions...that's up to the individual to report, and to the mod's discretion to react to.

My point is that just as I would never expect a racist to start loving black people just because I told him to....I would not expect people who denigrate christians to stop doing so just because I started a thread telling them not to.

It speaks to the basic content of who a person is, inside, as to how tolerant that they are. I'm saying that unless you reach them on that level, no amount of reproof will change the situation.

[RevCheesehead]

314. Possibly. However, I would argue that those people don't belong at DU.

You know, rules are rules, and either you agree to follow them, or don't. A thread like this one can serve as a reminder to those who are looking for a chance to start bashing away to stop and think about what they're doing.

You do realize that there are people here who have disagreements about other issues in life, right? Not everyone here is in agreement about abortion, gay rights, use of alcohol, narcotics, or other stimulants, sexuality, gambling, the role of the DNC, the potential candidate for 2008, or the NCAA Championship. There are still certain rules about civility and decorum, rules about how we engage in a discussion with someone with whom we disagree.

I may never convince a Liebermann supporter that I think he is wrong for our party. But that doesn't give me the right to post "Liebermann sucks. Anyone who backs him is mentally deranged."

It would be wrong for me to say with absolute conviction that "men are incapable of using their brain and their penis at the same time." I might believe it, I may have evidence to back it up, but it's still an inappropriate and sexist remark.

I would never post a remark that said "if the African-Americans ever want to gain support, they need to move out of the city; or they need to do something to stop Black-on-black street crime."

It would be totally inappropriate to tell all Native Americans that they are personally responsible for the NA school-shooter in MN. It would be even worse if someone were to say "well, they all probably deserved it. Lazy asshole freeloaders. I say, tax the reservations!!"

My question is: at what point does tolerance of rudeness end?

How much bashing is "acceptable" just because the poster says "I don't mean ALL (fill in the blank), just the nasty ones." And, by the way, this "qualifier" is thrown out as an afterthought, right after someone says "I'm offended by your remark." The implication is, "you stupid git. You should know that I don't mean everybody. Don't be so thin-skinned!" - when the truth of the matter is more likely that the poster never stopped to think that their remarks might be considered offensive (or even more likely, they just didn't give a shit).

* If I say that about a person's ethnicity, it's still a racist statement.
* If I say that about a person's gender, it's still a sexist remark.
* If I say that about a person's religion, it's still a hateful statement, regardless of which religion, denomination, church, or faith you are talking about.

[Lerkfish]

44. sorry, dupe

my browser hiccuped.

[Afje]

47. No longer a privat matter

I'm a new member, but I bet that just a few short years ago your post would have been regarded as a hoax.
Today the Christian Right has a virtual lock on US policies. It has money, momentum and the cloud to dominate the political scene. Unfortunately, all Christians get tossed into the same pot, but the attacks as you call them, have their roots in legitimate concern.

[Lerkfish]

55. correct...but liberal christians have the SAME concerns.

We are also appalled at the radical right wing "christians" and their lust for secular power.

I DO think the concerns are legitimate, and should be addrressed and discussed.
Unfortunately, threads that COULD be productive, break down into DU christians having to fend off pointless accusations and whatnot.
I would LOVE to see a thread that examined, analyzed, and discussed the problem of the right wing domination of churches in current govt. policy...but I cannot participate in such threads with an asbestos jacket.

[Afje]

89. Need national forum for discussion

I agree. Moderate Christians have as much to loose from the radical wing of Christianity as non-Christians do. If the separation of Church and State is to be upheld, those people/groups have to be confronted and stopped. This will not happen on a forum like this, but must be done on a national level. It would be helpful to have an independent media.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

48. Same old tired line

We mustn’t subject the Christians to critical analysis, why it's just not godly.

Bad news, we not only can subject them to criticism, we must subject them to criticism if we are to protect the country from zealots. However, that is a nice little self-protection mechanism the "faith" has built into it. Kind of like one cannot criticize what's in the bible because, well, it's in the bible.

[WilliamPitt]

57. 'Critical analysis'

Is calling Christianity a 'death cult' a critical analysis or an insult? I've seen that posted here.

Is calling someone's personal religion a 'fairy tale' a critical analysis or an insult? I've seen that posted here.

Is lumping Christians on DU in with the crazies outside the Schiavo hospise critical analysis or an insult? I've seen that posted here.

I'm all for critical analysis - my favorite topic is the manner in which Constantine changed Christianity by giving it state sponsorship, and how he co-opted pagan holidays to consolidate his power - but a lot of what happens here isn't critical analysis. It's just lashing out.

I'll say this much: If Judaism (not Israel, but Judaism) was subjected to the kind of 'critical analysis' that Christianity endures here, the Anti-Defamation League would be so far up our asses that we wouldn't know whether to shit or go sailing.

Methinks, perhaps, some of you don't know what critical analysis is. Hint: It isn't a torrent of insults.

[_TJ_]

63. I'm with you sir

Some of these creeps don't realise that liberal christians
are some of the best allies they could ever hope for.

I say that as an atheist :)

[MollyStark]

134. Hi TJ

Your avatar is so cute that I immediately think you are a friendly cheery person. You seem to be a little ray of sunshine on DU. Did you intend that?

[_TJ_]

138. Why, It's like you've known me all my life

:7

[Bouncy Ball]

69. Will,

so why not hit alert on those posts? After all, bashing someone's religious beliefs (no matter what they are) isn't allowed here, per the posting rules.

[WilliamPitt]

71. I do

but there's a lot of it. Commenting on it is necessary.

May I offer a suggestion based upon hard-won wisdom? Trying to be a board nanny on topics you don't like will only frustrate you and piss other people off. Trust me, I've tried it.

[Bouncy Ball]

80. Am I trying to be a board nanny, as you put it?

Not sure what you meant by that. It seems like you are contradicting yourself. You say you hit alert, you say there is a need to talk about it, then you say being a board nanny isn't a good thing. That seems contradictory, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

I'm just saying hit alert, that's all. And if you do, and if the mods check those alerts, what more is there to say? Sometimes it seems like starting threads like this one just gets people even more riled up and prone to provocation.

Dunno, just an observation...

[Jamastiene]

209. You've made another good point.

And I agree with you on that one. I have no way of even knowing who is Christian and who is not on DU until one of these threads pop up. And when these types of threads pop up, the ones with the accusing undertones and the blatantly mocking air of don't dare question anything about Christianity on DU, it DOES piss me off. If I am to learn the difference between fundies (and most of the Christians I have known all my life are fundies) and liberal Christians, how will I know without asking? I'm already seeing a split of sorts between Christians on DU. There are those who don't start threads with broad strokes against nontheists that seem to be the nicest people to talk to. And then there are the ones who start threads accusing ALL nontheists of bashing ALL Christians that I usually try to discuss, get frustrated because I am reminded of fundies way too much and I end up "ignoring" that select few.

[Bouncy Ball]

220. I feel the same way and am seeing the same thing.

You have a good point re: "how will I know without asking?"

And if I weren't a Christian, I'd be VERY hesistant to ask or say ANYTHING about Christianity on DU at this point. I'd feel like I had to phrase it soooo carefully.

[_TJ_]

221. self-delete

dupe

[_TJ_]

222. "accusing ALL nontheists of bashing ALL Christians"

When did THAT ever happen?

[Jamastiene]

262. It's the constant implication

For one. The OP implied it in the OP. Many follow ups implied it and some have even come right out and said it. There are so many of these persecution threads, it's hard to keep up with them. Still the bottom line is that there are Christians on DU who are logical when it comes to dealing with the ones like me. BB is one. We seem to get along fine and there are others as well. Then there are those who don't listen to a word I say and act all persecuted because they see "right wing Christians" or "some Christians" in my post and act like it applies to them. Are you doing that? Are you righ wing or a fundy or what? Should you be all offended? If you are on DU because you believe the same as the majority of the tenants of progressive politics, then you shouldn't be taking posts about the rr as being toward you or all Christians. It's time to differentiate and listen closer if you really want to learn something.

[vi5]

73. Uh.....it applies to all religions.....

Believe me, it's just as annoying to have any criticism of Israel or right wing Zionists be decried as anti-semitism as it is to have any constructive criticism/discussion of Christianity be deemed Christian bashing.

We choose what groups we belong to and identify ourselves with. When we choose those groups we must either defend them when we agree with them, stand up and change them when we disagree, or not be a part of the group in the first place. Shutting down discussion because it makes us feel bad is not one of the options.

[WilliamPitt]

79. Gah...the old 'shutting down discussion' bugaboo

Drives me nuts. No one wants to shut down any discussions, and even if someone did, that's like trying to command the tide.

But we're liberals, right? We believe in being sensitive to others beliefs, right? We believe in openness, right? We don't believe in prejudgment, right?

I hope so.

[vi5]

I try never to pre-judge anyone based on a label...

..I judge people only on their actions or inactions . So if in the face of a group of extremists or ideologues hijacking their religion, if a Christian, or Muslim, or Jew or Satanist or whatever opts not to act or speak on the behalf of sanity or their own liberal position, then I think I have every right to call them to task on their inaction. Not call names. Not insult. But to point out the disconnect in what they believe and in what they support (even if that support takes the form of sitting in silence while the extremists shout). If they choose to not defend themselves but instead shut down discussion then it is they who are contributing to the problem just as much as the name callers.

[G_j]

196. that is the bottom line for me

"We believe in being sensitive to others beliefs, right? We believe in openness, right? We don't believe in prejudgment, right?"

-right

This defines in many ways the human community I choose to be part of and work towards.

[_TJ_]

231. That's a beautiful sentiment

Well said!

[G_j]

265. thank Will for the thought

I think all of us who are sincere liberals want a world that is safe, fair and healthy for everyone.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

164. 'death cult' a critical analysis or an insult?

“Is calling Christianity a 'death cult' a critical analysis or an insult? I've seen that posted here.”

I don’t know, is it, lets take a look. Demonstrably the main story within the Christian religion is the “death” of Jesus, isn’t that what all of Christian theology revolves around, that Jesus “died” on the cross for our sins? Go into about any church and you will most always find a cross with Jesus hanging on it in the troughs of “death.” So yes, I would say that qualifies it as a death cult.

However, you might take exception to the use of the word cult, maybe that’s an insult. I remember back in the 80’s when all of these so-called religious cults were springing up and people were wanted to have their loved ones rescued from them and deprogrammed. During that time there was an organization which sprang up called C.A.N. for “Cult Awareness Network”. CAN had a list of ten things one could look at to determine if a religion was a cult or not. A few of the items they listed were the following.

1. Charismatic leader at the center of the religion
2. Emphasis on giving the correct amount of ones money to the religion
3. Emphasis on the recruitment of others to join the religion.

While I looked at their list I thought, “ Gee, that sounds like many Christian churches that I have been too”. Therefore, arguably there is foundation to refer to the Christian religion as a cult. It’s just a very big cult.

“Is calling someone's personal religion a 'fairy tale' a critical analysis or an insult? I've seen that posted here.”

I would agree that calling a Christian’s religion a “fairy tale”, is a denigrative way to phrase it. Conversely, identifying their religion as modern day mythology is not, and can be supported by evidence.

“Is lumping Christians on DU in with the crazies outside the Schiavo hospice critical analysis or an insult? I've seen that posted here.”

Again, I don’t know, what are the sects and denominations the people outside of the hospice center come from? What sect or denomination is the Christian on DU from? Maybe they are part of the same group, maybe their not. However, they are both identifying themselves as being part of the same religion, i.e., a Christian.

[Inland]

64. You are mixing apples and oranges/

Christians aren't beyond criticism. Christianity isn't beyond analysis.

But unfair criticism is worthless and hostility to christianity on the basis of the zealots is wrong. And subjecting a religion to a debate on its validity isn't the point of DU.

It's not fair to the Christians who aren't responsible for the actions of people they don't know from Adam, many of whom are good DUers and don't think that they have to give up a liberal, conscientious religious belief.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

258. Christianity isn't beyond analysis

"I don't think that they have to give up a liberal, conscientious religious belief."

Nor do I think that people have to, or should have to, give up personal religious beliefs to be part of any political party. I am an adamant support of the 1st amendment right to freedom of religion as I think it is foundational to a free society.

However, the issue, as I see it, is not about ones personal religious beliefs, but about religion being a part of how we govern ourselves; separation of church and state as provided for in the Constitution, and I am not seeing the liberal wing of the Christian religion taking a strong stance on that issue. I’ve even read Christians on the DU site say they think the Faith Based Initiative, a program that clearly violates the Constitution, which is why it is being funded by executive order and has not been presented to Congress yet, as being an ok thing. A political viewpoint I strongly disagree with and oppose.

So the issue for me is not about individual religion but about keeping religion out of politics, as Constitutionally provided for, and part of the political philosophy of the founders.

But Christians here will say that “we’re not part of the Christians who support making America a theocracy, so you should not suggest that we might be”. Ok, so they say that are not a part of that faction, why is the burden of proof on me to prove that they are, why is it not on them to prove that they aren’t? After all, they do identify themselves as being Christians, which it is currently Christians who are trying to subvert our government. Why should I have to go through and determine that, O.K, you, you’re part of the good guys”, and “you, well, you’re part of the bad guys”? Again, for the liberal Christians to take a strong stand on the Constitutionality issues currently being subverted by a faction of their religion, would go a long way for some of us.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

259. Christianity isn't beyond analysis

"I don't think that they have to give up a liberal, conscientious religious belief."

Nor do I think that people have to, or should have to, give up personal religious beliefs to be part of any political party. I am an adamant support of the 1st amendment right to freedom of religion as I think it is foundational to a free society.

However, the issue, as I see it, is not about ones personal religious beliefs, but about religion being a part of how we govern ourselves; separation of church and state as provided for in the Constitution, and I am not seeing the liberal wing of the Christian religion taking a strong stance on that issue. I’ve even read Christians on the DU site say they think the Faith Based Initiative, a program that clearly violates the Constitution, which is why it is being funded by executive order and has not been presented to Congress yet, as being an ok thing. A political viewpoint I strongly disagree with and oppose.

So the issue for me is not about individual religion but about keeping religion out of politics, as Constitutionally provided for, and part of the political philosophy of the founders.

But Christians here will say that “we’re not part of the Christians who support making America a theocracy, so you should not suggest that we might be”. Ok, so they say that are not a part of that faction, why is the burden of proof on me to prove that they are, why is it not on them to prove that they aren’t? After all, they do identify themselves as being Christians, which it is currently Christians who are trying to subvert our government. Why should I have to go through and determine that, O.K, you, you’re part of the good guys”, and “you, well, you’re part of the bad guys”? Again, for the liberal Christians to take a strong stand on the Constitutionality issues currently being subverted by a faction of their religion, would go a long way for some of us.

[Tux]

149. That is why

Christianity isn't a religion but a cult. I got kicked out of churches just for asking questions about things. They get upset since their beliefs are fragile and may shatter if anyone thinks differently. They have to get over the Word of God bullshit and no, not every church has the One Truth at all. Get over it and join the rest of us in reality.

To me the best Bible to learn god from is the Universe. Truely made by god.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

172. I know, I have had the same thing happen

They don't tolerate inquiry real well.

[Jack Rabbit]

54. Well said

The Schiavo matter is not about who's religion is right or whether all religion is nuts. Among other things, it is about the proper place of religion in a pluralistic, democratic society.

The people demonstrating in front of the hospice have as much right to their religious beliefs, to base their views on civic affairs on those beliefs and to publicly air those views as anybody else. They do not have the more right than anybody else to influence civic affairs because they claim to have a special relationship with God that the rest of us just can't fathom.

We should not threaten anyone's right to believe as he chooses or to arrange his private affairs according to those beliefs. One's faith is a matter for the private domain; it should remain there.

Sooner or later, Democrats will have to reach out to Christian fundamentalists who also happen to be debtors hurt by the recent bankruptcy reform, pensioners threatened by Social Security privatization or employees of corporations like WalMart who would benefit from stronger labor laws. The recent events in Pinellas Park have shown that, when all is said and done, the Republicans are unable or unwilling to impose a narrow faith-based agenda on those of us who do not necessarily share those religious views; it is not the business of the state to save souls.

While the Republicans promised Christian fundamentalists something they could not deliver and even passed or proposed legislation that hurts many of these same people, Democrats can promise these people something else of value: better opportunity for economic security and upward mobility. Democrats have a track record, based on the New Deal and the Great Society, of delivering on these promises.

It would behoove us not to alienate the religious community. We have lost many of these people by being condescending toward them. I, too, have been guilty of that. Many of these people are people to whom the Democratic Party can make an appeal. A good start in making that appeal would be to stop being condescending or threatening.

[Malva Zebrina]

59. I suspect your beef is more with those Christian protestors in Florida

and all the other Christian arms and organisations that support them, than with people here who are, quite rightfully, angry and appalled at the consequences of what they are all doing and recommending as far as theocratic ideals go.

Why not aim at them? Take it to them! I understand your dismay, but I think it is misdirected.

Those Christians are doing more to destroy Christianity than any poster on these boards could ever do and they are your enemies--not posters on an anonymous message board.

[Inland]

84. Yeah, but I have a million posts on the Schiavo matter

Look me up.

You can expect me to take a democratic and what used to be liberal, now moderate, stand on those issues.

But that has nothing to do with this, except the frustration with the religious extremists is causing a lot of lashing out.

[Malva Zebrina]

142. I know

it must be exasperating to you, a member of that faith, as much as is it exasperating, even life threatening, to those who express their rage at these Christians in sometimes irrational ways.

I have been following these radical Christians, and I will add Catholic as a subset, for many years. I got most of my information about Robertson, Falwell, Reed, Dobsen, Opus Dei and all the, perhaps by now hundreds of accompanying religious fascist like organisations from atheist writings and publications, whose interest in preserving the separation of church and state was and still is, it's highest motivation.

I wish that more Christians who would describe themself as liberal, would have paid attention instead of doggedly pursuing a somewhat blind defense of their Christianity, no matter who or what was doing it's best to transform it into a fascist approach.

I do not know the answer to it, or what any Christian can indeed do about it, but my focus remains upon upholding the separation of church and state .

Perhaps that is where the liberal Christains need to focus also--I would, on principle, no matter how poor my church or how much in need my school needs computers, refuse to take faith based charity money (bribes, imo) from any government, because to do so, puts that church and it's religion, in hoc to the government who can then virtually rule over the religion and effect it's preachings by holding the bribe over their heads, especially this fascist regime we now have in control.

Work to expose just who Bush granted these billions of dollars to, using an EXECUTIVE ORDER-doling out tax payer monies simply upon his whims and of course, his political aspirations.

[jonnyblitz]

61. leviticus 20:13

KJV: (King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

any religion who has THAT written in their book i will NEVER NEVER EVER have respect for. I don't care how many people tell me it doesn't say what it says or how many people tell me they make up their own version of christianity and ignore this part, follow that part, or how many other gay folks claim to be christians. And what is with the folks who claim to be christians but they laugh at all the horrible stuff in the bible and claim they don't pay attention and follow it anymore, they make new shit up as they go along. why are you christians if you can't even stomach what is in your book of teachings? now THAT makes a lot of fucking sense. :crazy:
I have many friends who are christians or who claim to be , but I ,personally ,could NEVER NEVER EVER respect a religion in whose book they proclaim that, as a gay man, I am worthy of death. Don't even TRY to tell me I have to. :puke:

I am done with this fucking thread. I am not coming back to it.

[_TJ_]

68. Yeah don't engage in debate whatever ya do

ya might actually learn something. :eyes:

[Jamastiene]

62. So our views aren't valid to you.

And exactly what are we provoking you to do? Are you saying we are provoking you to violence against us? I know there are Christians who are not only capable of violence against someone for simply not believing, but have experienced violence directly from Chrsitians. I take your post as a verbal threat to commit assault.

[mondo joe]

65. I suggest you spend your time telling your fellow christians to stop

antagonizing the rest of us in the name of their religion, and then it just won't be an issue.

[_TJ_]

72. That is such nonsense

The liberal christians on DU can no more control the rabid
fundie lunatics out there than you can.

[mondo joe]

94. But what they can do is spend their energies on THEM than on

ME for defending myself.

[_TJ_]

defending yourself?

When did a xtian on DU ever attack you?

[mondo joe]

116. When did I ever say they did?

Christians in the US have led a full out attack on my civil rights.

If I refer to Christians who do such things and you're not one of them, it's not about you.

But I'm not prepared to curb my comments about those that do.

[MissB]

67. Let's just pit all the various factions on DU against each other

so we can have more flame fest threads.

I suggest that this thread was not at all necessary.

[Bouncy Ball]

70. Hear, hear.

[MissB]

78. Some mornings I just want to bang my head against the nearest brick wall

and other mornings I feel cranky enough to dive right in.

Maybe I need a few more bruises on my head.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." - Mark Twain

Questioning the validity of cherished beliefs is what is usually known as dissent. Because it "provokes" believers doesn't negate it's value in calling into question the validity of any belief system.

You might take into account that a man who angered a lot of people with his radical views, and attacks on the established religious beliefs of the time, using tactics that you describe as "provocative" was tortured and hung on a cross.

[quinnox]

75. I agree with you, but there has always been a bigoted anti-religion

element at DU. I just tend to ignore them either literally or using ignore function, some of them are really offensive and nasty.

And this is from someone who isn't a christian, I really wonder how anyone who is spiritual at all could stay at Du at times but I suppose they do what I do and ignore it

[Bouncy Ball]

86. I can only speak for myself but I know several

anti-deists here and, after the initial shock of first reading their words several months ago, I haven't really had any other reaction. They feel how they feel. :shrug: I feel how I feel. Bashing someone's religious beliefs is against the posting rules here, so hitting alert is an option in addition to ignoring the poster or hiding the thread.

All in all, it honestly doesn't bother me. I can understand how they feel, for the most part. And I get the sense it's not ME or people like me they are angry at, but the same people I'm angry at: those who alternately ignore and pervert Jesus' teachings for their own hateful ends.

As for those who really ARE bashing me (ie: I'm mentally ill and need an imaginary friend to make me feel better), I really don't care about that, either. I know I'm not mentally ill. My belief in a Higher Power is pretty secure and it doesn't hurt anyone. So why should I be bothered by how they feel? And again, there's always that little alert button.

[quinnox]

91. yea, that's about the way I think too

It's not worth getting worked up over, or debate them, I just let it go. If they want to make childish insults and act like they have the key to the universe and all knowledge, I just figure they still have a lot of learning to do and perhaps they will find it one day and open their minds. <shrug>

[_TJ_]

93. Another sage post BB

As usual, you are the voice of sanity.

[Bouncy Ball]

97. Aw, stop that.

Thank you. You have had some pretty good posts I've been following in this thread and I noticed you seem to be where I am, though we come from different (opposite?) religious views.

Isn't that nice? :-)

[_TJ_]

110. Looks like we met in the middle

:D

[Bouncy Ball]

120. I wish more people realized

that people of ALL beliefs can do that. Meet in the middle. Some of my dearest friends are atheist and agnostic and we have had WONDERFUL conversations on this topic. I understand where they are coming from better, they understand me better, and we still love each other.

I work closely with a local atheist group who fights for separation of church and state. I think there should be more alliances like that, because in the end, I just want Americans to be free to believe as they wish and free of religion in their government.

[Ganja Ninja]

77. I'll stop provoking them when they stop provoking me.

:argh:

[_TJ_]

126. No one on DU is provoking you SC

[Ganja Ninja]

147. And I'm not provoking Christians posting on DU.

At least not intentionally. People who are offended by some of the attitudes of posters commenting on the overbearing fundamentalists posing as Christians need to grow a thicker skin.

[MollyStark]

169. What did any Christian on DU ever provoke you?

I am wondering what they did or said here are DU to provoke you.

[kaitykaity]

87. If you can't handle the heat from people who have been

hurt by Christians in some way, then maybe this is not
the place for you. Or did you think people were critical
of Christianity just for the sport of it?

I could go on for days about how denigrating to women
the faith is. There isn't a more sexist story in religious
literature than blaming Eve for the sin of the universe so
that women can be placed in the role of "helpmeet second
class." Or how instead of being a joyous experience, the
pain of childbirth is the reminder of Eve's original sin.

That might not be an original thought either, but it's at
it's core why I am an agnostic. And I am allowed to say that
on this board.

It might be a good idea to get off of your high horse and
strap on some empathy glasses. But I guess it's more fun to
lecture us, and then pretend to be "oh so picked on and
abused."

:gaack:

[Bouncy Ball]

102. I know a lot of people who have been hurt by organized religion.

And I feel for them. Maybe it is from that place that I feel empathy when people lash out against organized religion, I don't know.

[Inland]

118. Finally, someone admits their postion: Christians aren't welcome.

I got empathy up the ass, but apparently there is only enough in the universe for those who have been hurt by Christians in some way.

Those people whose faith leads them to liberal ideals--they can piss off. I'm not sure what you believe in, except that they have whatever coming to them. Not sure how that helps anybody.

[kaitykaity]

124. Oh Bull. You want people to stop X and X and X,

so I guess we're not welcome either is that it?

Lame-o.

I guess you lost those empathy glasses. Yet another
example of the hypocrisy of most Christians.

[Inland]

154. What's your politics? Liberal Democrat? Come on in.

There are people not welcome in DU. Are liberal democrat Christians among them?

If they aren't welcome, then by all means, flame away, and I'll watch all my issues lose again for the next fifty election cycles.

[kaitykaity]

178. You're trying to universalize something that was personal

in my first post.

YOU were the one calling people stupid and griping and
complaining because we dare say anything bad about your
precious religion.

And I said too damn bad. You don't like it, you don't
have to be here.

If you can handle being around non-believers and people
who have a problem with organized religion, come on in
and talk about it.

Obviously from your original post, you can't handle it.
You want us to shut up. Well, then, if you can't handle
what we have to say, maybe you shouldn't be here.

You. Not all "liberal Christians." YOU.

[_TJ_]

121. The xtians on DU haven't done those things to you

Nor do they neccessarily believe those things - I would think most
of them don't have those beliefs in fact.

There is no need to attack people who aren't attacking you.

[kaitykaity]

127. Criticizing the faith is not attacking the people.

But somebody who gets in our face and tells us
we're stupid is attacking us and there is a need
to respond.

[_TJ_]

137. Nobody in DU is getting in your face and saying you're stupid

What the heck are you going on about?

[kaitykaity]

139. Yeah they are. Did you even read the original post?

"2) You can’t tell Christians that their religion isn’t valid. Well, you can, but you look stupid. Why? Because telling Christians that Easter eggs and Christmas trees have their origin in pagan rituals is telling them something they already know."

[_TJ_]

148. That wasn't aimed at you

That was about ppl who think revelations about easter eggs and
christmas trees can disprove someone's faith. Did YOU read the OP?

[kaitykaity]

156. It's calling people stupid.

When you call people stupid, that deserves a
response. The whole post is full of these sorts
of blanket statements. I chose one because you
asked what I was talking about. I could go through
the whole OP line by line to show you, but you'd
come up with some Quisling rhetorical evasion for
each one.

I have the right to the opinion I expressed in
my first post, and I stand by it.

[_TJ_]

162. Oh it's calling 'people' stupid now

Well I'm sure 'people' would be very offended :eyes:

[kaitykaity]

212. Couldn't come up with anything better than that, eh?

There were blanket derogatory statements in the OP
that demanded a response and now you want to boil
it down to that?

What a waste of my time.

[_TJ_]

239. Nope

I said *you* weren't being called stupid. You said *you* were

You weren't. Simple really.

[kaitykaity]

270. Talk about slicing rhetorical hairs, hanging out

down in the weeds so you don't have to confront
the nonsense you're defending in the larger sense.

:gaack:

Oh, and since you're so hung up on the "stupid"
thing, I'll say it this way.

The person is saying that any criticism of Christianity
is stupid, blah, blah, blah, and I'm saying I have
the right and privilege here to call this person on
that. I get to criticize Christianity here.

Your posts are a distraction with no coherent argument.
Nit pick, nit pick, nit pick, without addressing the
substance of what I had to say about the sexism inherent
in Christianity. I fell for it, but no more.

Say something of substance. Quit being so damn
Aristotlean and be a little Platonic why don't you.

[_TJ_]

276. Here ya go then

I ignored your other points because I had no objection to them.

No one here is denying Christianity has a history of sexism
and worse. None of the xtians on DU are sexists though or
would defend the evils still perpetrated in the name of xtianity
even today.

I don't know who you're trying to attack but it ain't them.

[MollyStark]

175. Not a very rational position

When you consider that at least a plurality of people who vote democratic are Christians it doesn't make much sense to say they aren't welcome here.

[kaitykaity]

184. Not "they".

Just this person, who can't seem to handle being
around non-believers and other people who have a
problem with organized religion.

I didn't say anything about this person not being
welcome. I don't have any say over that. It's just
maybe they'd be happier somewhere where Christianity
is treated with all sweetness and light and no criticism
is allowed.

[MollyStark]

188. The original poster is right

[kaitykaity]

232. In YOUR opinion maybe.

Sure love the argument you made to defend them
though.

:eyes:

[MollyStark]

287. Yes in my opinion

[kaitykaity]

294. Not a very rational opinion. n/t

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

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

[Bouncy Ball]

114. Ok so we got a classic example here.

What was my gut reaction to this post as a Christian? Nothing. Algomas thinks I believe in fairy tales, maybe I do. Whatever. My beliefs aren't hurting Algomas and his/hers aren't hurting me.

Algomas may disagree about my beliefs not hurting them, and that's ok, too, though I will tell him or her how they aren't and don't (I'm not a fundie and working for peace and fighting poverty are my two main goals in life--I also never tell people my religion in real life unless they point-blank ask me). Algomas may disagree further, and that's ok, too. We'll keep talking as long as both of us are willing.

:toast:

[Algomas]

197. Forgive my callous reaction..

but I feel under siege from so called Christians. How much blood needs to be spilled before Jebus and Mo are satiated. I can empathize with people needing structure and certainty in their lives but when religion becomes twisted into a mechanism to control me, I feel threatened. Unfortunately, it seems that ALL religion becomes exploitive and controlling. I think of it as a form of OCD whereby ones life is carefully regulated to keep chaos at bay.
That said, my family attends Unitarian services and sometimes if the sermon is interesting, I will attend as well. I consider myself to be a very spiritual person and as such, I reject the greeting card religion that I am surrounded by.

[_TJ_]

207. No one on DU is threatening you

No one on DU wants to take away your rights or harm you in
any way. Cut the xtian Duers some slack eh?

[Bouncy Ball]

211. Well what do you know? I feel the same as you!

And I would have never suspected it from your first post!

I can't stand it either. All the marketing of Jesus, all the pushing of religion, 24/7. I live in Dallas, can you imagine???

I think of myself as spiritual rather than religious, too, and we attend a UU church, just as of recently. For a long time, we wouldn't go to any church at ALL.

:hug:

[LoganW]

112. Oh ok

"1) You can’t tell Christians they are responsible for “their religion”. If you didn’t know, the Christian church in America is atomized into a thousand separate Christian sects, and they don’t answer to each other. They barely recognize each others’ existence. Some are no bigger than a single church in a single town. It’s easier to place responsibility on the secular as Bush’s fellow Americans than it is to place responsibility on the Christians as fellow Christians."

Then why do BOTH sides sit around bitching that the others aren't "real christians". As far as I'm concerned all the sects are nuts.

"2) You can’t tell Christians that their religion isn’t valid. Well, you can, but you look stupid. Why? "

Funny how the sects sit around telling each other their religion isn't valid.

"3) You can’t tell Christians that their faith is inconsistent with being liberal or being democrats. Well, again, it would be stupid. Martin Luther King. Jesse Jackson. Jimmy Carter. Heck, even John Kerry and Bill Clinton were committed churchgoers. These people found their best in religion."

You can also find your worst in religion. I would argue it was not religion at all that brought out the best in them.

"Separation of church and state is what makes a discussion of the validity of any particular religion unnecessary."

BS. If there were millions of americans who all of a sudden adopted a belief system that told them jumping up and down twice would eventually let them fly would we have to accept the validity of that? Of course not. With every other type of invalid belief we would not accept it, yet with religion we just have to automatically assume validity?

"Christians who happen to be here"

If you post your religion on a public message board you should expect discussion, including the validity of it.

[YankeyMCC]

130. I guess I don't hang out in GD or other parts of DU

enough.

I've seen a couple of obvious baiting threads in the Lounge in my time here but I've seen many more of the same type on many many more subjects having nothing to do with religion.

I just haven't seen nearly as many xian provoking posts as I have "stop persecuting us posts" in places like GD and GD Lounge.

And no I haven't counted.

I have seen a lot of provocation on both sides (xian and atheist) in R & T but my impression is that if you go there you should expect that to happen. It's a place for open and frank discussion on those subjects and there's bound to be heightened emotions involved particularly on a Internet Web forum.

The OP of this thread makes some very good points and good advice for the Dem party in general. But I think it has dubious at best applicability to DU.

As an atheist I was feeling very offended and deliberately provoked in the R&T forum. I now have a single person on my ignore list. And although there is still occasionally provocative posts it is at a much more acceptable level.

I suspect any xian members would find a similar effect with minimal use of the ignore function.

[0007]

131. The ignore button is for those thin skin folks that don't want their head

taken off by opinion other than their way.



Gong it or use alert

[Walt Starr]

141. Point of order: The religiously insane outside the hospice in Florida

are not Christians, IMNSHO.

[earth mom]

145. RELIGION & POLITICS SHOULD BE KEPT SEPARATE. PERIOD. 'NUFF SAID. nt

[jives]

179. Right on!!

Try mixing fire and water. It's easier!

[MollyStark]

185. That is never going to happen

Nor does it have to according to the laws of the US constitution.

[Name removed]

266. Deleted message

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

[trotsky]

150. Sign off and go back to real life, then,

if you need to be in a place where your views are validated by the majority of the population, where the currency you spend and the pledge recited in public reinforce your beliefs, where just about every politician ends a speech with "God Bless America," and where Christianity is assumed.

Everything you deal with on this little microcosm known as DU is experienced by us non-believers out in the real world a thousand times over.

Don't whine about "bashing" threads until you've lived a day as an atheist in "Christian America."

[_TJ_]

158. Two wrongs don't make a right pal

Just cause the world is full of assholes, it don't make it right
for someone to act like an asshole in here.

[trotsky]

163. I never said it did.

Just trying to bring some perspective in all this. You know, the whole "walk a mile in my shoes" deal.

[Inland]

168. Yeah, I don't know who you are arguing with.

Not me, and certainly not christians who come to DU, for that very reason: we ain't here to talk the God stuff. I didn't post the easter egg post, or the christmas tree post, or any of the other stuff.

I certainly understand your desire for a sanctuary against the piestic religiousity of politicians.

But that merely means DU should be a zone where people are judged by the quality of their politics, not a christian free zone. It isn't here to validate your atheism, either.

By the way, was there something that made you assume I wasn't an atheist? I really try to avoid giving out my personal beliefs, one becasue it shouldn't matter in huge detail, two because I find the entire theology thing an incredible bore, three because it's a political forum.

[_TJ_]

171. Inland! Inland! Inland!

Where's the applause smiley? :7

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[trotsky]

183. I didn't post those posts either.

As you correctly note, this is a political message board. It's not a Christian-free zone, but then neither I nor any of the other atheists I've read seem to think it should be. What we as liberal atheists would like to do is have a chance to speak our minds, since we are not part of the dialog in real life. And sometimes, things will be said that challenge religious beliefs. Unfortunately, some thin-skinned people will take that as an insult to their beliefs.

Some atheists are rude, sure. But there have been rude posts by Christians, too. Why single out the atheists?

If you are not a Christian, then I apologize for directing my post at you, assuming you were. But my comments still hold for any Christian who feels persecuted on DU. The real world is waiting for them to return, where their beliefs are dominant and non-believers are forced to shut up.

[Inland]

257. Why do you think "their beliefs" are dominant?

That is simply a trick of definition: that Christians are the majority, that all Christianity is the same, and that Bush is pushing Christianity.

The liberal democrat Christian you find here isn't exactly the most empowered individual. They are right here in the same doghouse as you. What's more, they are willing to share it with you. Why push them out, telling them their beliefs are outside, with Bush, with the fundies?

It isn't true, today. But we can MAKE it true by telling christians that they are silly, stupid people or that they are the same as Falwell and Robertson. I wonder how many Christians just write off liberalism without thinking, just because battle lines have been drawn with unfortunate and unnecessary theological baiting.

[trotsky]

268. No one has said they are "the same."

I've been through this wringer many times with many people.

What IS "the same" is that all Christians get their beliefs from a particular book. They each read it a little differently, and thus have different beliefs. I happen to think that illustrates a fundamental flaw in religion. Am I allowed to think that opinion? Am I allowed to express it? To what extent?

Now just because I point out that MLK and Pat Robertson both base their theology on the same book, does that mean I think they're the same? No way. But I've had heated arguments with Christians who cannot understand it any other way.

[0007]

237. Was it right to steal from the Indians because they were Pagan

Heathens? Were the the blacks Soulless? The counties we raped in the name of Jesus Christ was because they didn't acknowledge the God of Judaism? Or was it something we wanted to steal?

I know where the Indians live, I know how the blacks are treated and I know homophobia U.S.A. real well and I know the counties that despise the U.S. and for what it stands for.

I'm not an atheist and I'm not a Christian....

trotsky your "Don't whine about bashing" threads until you've lived a day as an atheist in "Christian America." Rings a bell with me and my experiences.

[jpgray]

151. Because they bitch and moan endlessly (nt)

[LoZoccolo]

161. DU is an emotional tampon for a lot if not most of it's membership.

You're appealing to reason and practicality, which is great, but I don't think it'll get anywhere with people who just come on here to rant and be paranoid. The Internet attracts a lot of people with poor social skills who aren't interested in relating well with other people they may disagree with. It's telling that when I try to encourage people to do this or that specific thing, like go to DNC meetups, there aren't many takers from here, and there are a lot of people that I meet at activities who've never heard of DU.

I'm not knocking DU either; when it's good, it's really good. It's just that you have to do quite a bit of sifting. I had 82 people on ignore once.

[Inland]

275. But it's not about me.

My personal problem with the threads are only that they are boring attempts to start flamewars, and that they are really simplistic theology.

The real problem is that liberal democrat Christians are made unwelcome, for not good reasons.

I can ignore it all day long, but it breaks my heart to see allies shown the metaphorical door.

[LoZoccolo]

288. True, it's important.

It's a big problem, that we are likely tossing out who could be the most important people here, who have reach with people in their churches that a lot of us don't.

[Susang]

297. Yes, you are knocking DU

And you've done it before. It's a very unfair thing to do to people you don't know and you really need to stop it.

Just because DUers in your city don't show up for the causes you think are important, doesn't mean that they are sitting on their asses doing nothing. I do know many of the DUers in the city you say you live in and many of them are very active in local political and social causes.

Where were you at the Chicago DU gathering? Where were you at the Chicago Planned Parenthood rally for contraception rights? Lots of Chicago DUers posted pictures of the March 19th protests, DUer BlueJay was even seen in the national AP photo; where were you?

Not everybody thinks DNC meet-ups and Oasis fanboy Lounge posts are the be all and end all of their political and social lives. If you had bothered to show up to meet any of the local DUers, you might have realized that.

[LoZoccolo]

301. Well, I'm not talking about you.

I've always said that when DU is good it's really good, even before when I was saying this kind of stuff. But c'mon, you know this place is teeming with ragweeds; that's why you and I go to the Lounge!

A lot of them are the kind of people that won't even show up to things like a DU gathering either. I've met wndycty at Kerry events; he's one of the normal and active people who's an exception too. But he's not around here anymore, and if you ask him, he might agree with me on this! Maybe that's why he's not here!

But let's not fight. I am just being William Shatner to this Trekkie convention.

[Susang]

302. "One of the normal and active people"

You really are something else. :eyes:

A lot of Chicago DUers were at Kerry events, but you wouldn't know that, would you? I'm not looking to fight with you, I just want you to stop ragging on people that work hard for local issues. Just because they don't attend the exact events you want them to, doesn't mean that they aren't doing anything and it's presumptuous of you to imply that they do. Which is what comes across when you right a post like the one you posted earlier in this thread, complaining that no local DUers show up to the DNC meetups that you posted about.

As far as wndycty goes, he posted a thread in GD:Politics on March 20th, so he's hardly disappeared. But thanks for reminding me, I owe him a PM.

[LoZoccolo]

303. I'm not ragging on people that work hard for local issues.

I'm ragging on other people. Sure I'm not being scientific or anything with my assumptions based on the low response to my calls-to-action, but you have to admit, there's a lot of complaining about the Democratic Party and what-not that takes on this tone of "someone should do something..." and it's really hard for me not to think it's got something to do with people who think posting on a message board constitutes activism or is going to change things. Ditto for those people who like to use this place to put the DNC or it's elected officials on notice regarding this or that issue. There's just a lot of stuff that gives me the impression that a lot of people are kind-of isolated, thinking impractically and hyperbolically, and aren't operating in the real world.

[Susang]

308. What I'm basically seeing

Is that you don't know any local DUers except wndycty, yet you have judged them all with a broad sweeping generalization. It may be true of other DUers, I wouldn't know, as I have not met them. I have met a majority of the Chicago DUers, having organized most of the local gatherings(along with Prolesunited and Greatauntoftriplets) and know that is not the case.

I haven't met you at any of the events I have attended, but I have never implied that you were lazy or uninvolved because of it. As a matter of fact, I only teased you for not showing up at the Chicago DU get-together because I took great pains to remind you about it and you still didn't show up. Now, if I were to judge you as harshly as you are judging others from that one incident, along with your decidedly non-serious presence in the Lounge, would you think it was fair?

[LoZoccolo]

313. I think you're taking this all the wrong way.

I don't mean to come off like I'm prodding anyone who's putting their time out there; I'm sorry if I'm being hazy about that. I don't think that just because I don't see the local DUers that you know at the particular events I go to, that they're lazy. I'm sure the kind of people that are sociable enough to know each other in person and go out and party probably are very active. I'm just saying there isn't near as much overlap between activism and participation on the message boards here as you'd expect. And I think the level of frustration and hyperbole that you see here isn't really in line with having a foot in the door of changing things. I don't think people would be as emotionally-driven if they had a practical outlet for all these things.

[RetroLounge]

165. Yeah, right, whatever...

Use the Alert Button
Use the Ignore Feature
Use that big 'X' in the upper right hand corner of IE.

I really just don't give a fuck about your persecution complex.

What Would Jesus Do? I doubt he'd whine on a Public Message Board...

:eyes:

RL

[Name removed]

181. Deleted message

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

[trotsky]

186. So you think the reason why Democrats have been losing

is because of a bunch of atheists posting on an Internet message board?

Do we have that much power?

[Inland]

202. Wrong question.

A right question is whether Democrats can win without liberal democrats of any and all religious persuasions.

Another is whether any religious persuasion should be made to feel unwelcome in a liberal democrat forum just because the majority or a minority doesn't share it.

I think practicality and idealism are the same in this instance.

[trotsky]

216. Everyone has a different idea of what "unwelcome" feels like.

There's many Christians who say the worst of the "anti-Christian" statements don't bother them one bit. As Thomas Jefferson said:

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.

What you're basically doing is telling all opposing viewpoints that if you don't censor yourself so as not to offend even the most thin-skinned person, we'll scare people away and never win an election again. Is that a threat?

[RetroLounge]

206. Oooh, Look at Inland, he made a Pithy Comment!

or was that a personal Attack?

Guess we'll let the Mods decide.

Very Xtian of you...

RL

[Solly Mack]

166. Just what language would you find non-offensive

when people who do not embrace any religion or religious belief discuss:

Mythology
Theology
Science: to include evolution
Education
Book Banning (attempts happen all the time)
Book Burnings (a search of DU archives will yield several stories of idiots burning books)
Censorship based on someone else's "morality"
"Family Values"
Human Rights -which will ALWAYS include the GLBT community
War
People who advocate theocracy by word or by deed...like Randall Terry and James Dobson, but certainly not limited to those two.
Parents who wish to teach faith as science
Parents who wish to impose religion (of any kind) on everyone at school

etc, etc, and so on

My only point being that a wide range of topics will deal with those people that would get called "fundies"...or right wing religious nutcases...
In the doing, people will voice an opinion and that opinion, no matter how it's worded, will probably offend someone...

So maybe a lists should be made of words, terms, and phrases the Christians on DU could be comfortable with when dealing with the various topics on DU....so they won't be offended by a poor word choice when there is a list of words to pick from that has been approved by the Christians on DU.

by the same token...

I'm sure a list can be made from those who are not religious and who embrace no religion on the most appropriate words, terms ,and phrases Christians on DU can use to avoid offending others as well.

Frankly, I don't see most DU'ers who call themselves Christian in the same way I see a fundie. To me there is a difference. But just because I see the difference doesn't mean that I believe Creation is anything other than a myth...and not because I don't believe God created man..but because I don't believe there is a God. Which might just be a point of discussion on a thread dealing with myths. So now we're back to how to discuss myths without offending somebody somewhere...because one man's myth is another man's god. And nothing is EVER going to change that.

[Inland]

193. Actually, I don't mind "fundies" or "righties" or "extremists"

But then again, I am not exactly the person to be asking on the details.

I merely think it important that a distinction SHOULD be made. When people speak of American imperialism, warmongering, racism and greed, wouldn't you want them to acknowledge that not all Americans think alike?

In DU, its ASSUMED because it's a political forum that there are political differences. Why aren't Christians given that much slack?

As for the ones who really are politically far out--their religious beliefs neither sanctify nor justify it. That was a point that kept comeing up with TS: her parents feel so strongly that she should live, why not give in? I didn't care.

But here, Christians can have all the same positions as anyone else, but they get smacked around in some posts, and others condemn the religion as a whole. Me, I just want to win an election.

[GiovanniC]

173. As a Straight, White, Male Christian, I Agree Wholeheartedly

I am just so damned sick of being persecuted all the time.

[_TJ_]

177. Hey hey no satire !

We've got enough flaming going on without your smiley-free
comedy stylings ;)

[MollyStark]

192. Hey I REALLY LIKE YOU

What topic is it which will put us at each other's throats? Wanta place a wager?

[_TJ_]

204. I know the answer

BUT I'LL NEVER TELL!! ;)

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

180. Most Depressing Thread of the Month

The right-wing evangelicals who make up the core of the Republican Party represent a minority (and a very small one) in the community of faith in America. They're a minority among Christians and a minority even among Protestants.

But there are people out there (and many on DU) who can't or won't recognize the difference between conservative fundamentalists and the rest of the community of faith. They persist in engaging in attacks on spirituality in general and organized religion in particular, despite the fact that this behavior has never been returned in kind. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't recall a Liberal Christian on DU ever starting an "Atheists Are So Stupid" thread.

In a world where elections are decided by razor-thin majorities, and even less than that in the case of the 2000 Election, one would think that liberals and progressives would accept allies wherever they could be found. One would think that liberals would welcome support from all corners and for whatever motivation, as long as it brings victory. Even Frankling Roosevelt found common cause with Joseph Stalin during World War II, at least long enough to defeat their common enemy.

Democrats need to understand that there's a whole community of people who believe that there is a broad intersection of Christian Values and Progressive Politics. Liberal Christians believe in a saviour who healed the sick and brought comfort to the afflicted. They believe that "blessed are the peacemakers" ought to be the foundation U.S. Foreign Policy.

Many of these people (Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other faiths) are already working hard on behalf of progressive candidates, and many more might become involved if it weren't for the perception that liberals are hostile to religious faith. You don't have to thank us for being involved (our ultimate reward is greater than any you can give), but you might want to consider at least holding your tongue the next time you're tempted to flame somebody for the sake of their religious faith.

[LoganW]

194. Hmm...

"The right-wing evangelicals who make up the core of the Republican Party represent a minority (and a very small one) in the community of faith in America. They're a minority among Christians and a minority even among Protestants"

Then WHY does the non-fundamentalists majority remain mute while the fundamentalists dominate? I can only assume it's a silent approval of them.

[_TJ_]

201. Hardly an approval

Among DU xtians at least I have only ever heard condemnation
of those jerks.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

249. Yet another example...

You're assuming the worst of me and forging a link between me and people whose behavior I find to be spiritually monstrous.

The fact is the liberal Christians have hardly been "mute" on this subject. The National Council of Churches works very hard to get out an alternative point of view on faith matters. And the UCC's recent ad campaign all but mocked the close-minded attitudes of the religious right. I have a bumper sticker on my car that says, "Christian Democrats practice what they preach" and I tell every one within earshot (included DU) that Jerry Falwell doesn't represent my experience of Jesus Christ.

We can't help it that the "liberal media" keeps giving air time to these cretins.

[_TJ_]

199. Bless you Jeff in Cincinnati !!

As an atheist I hope I'm allowed to say that :7

I agree 100% with everything you say.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

250. I take my blessing wherever I can get them...

Thanks!

[MollyStark]

200. From what little I have seen at DU, I agree with you.

I have never seen an "Atheists are so stupid" thread.

This was a very thoughtful post from you.

[Blue_In_AK]

215. This is the point that I made in my post yesterday, Jeff in Cincy...

"I want to be able to say that I follow his teachings without being presumed to be just another 'customer.'" These sorts of discussions only arise because the religious right has so sullied and perverted the name "Jesus." For myself, I'm not even sure I could be called a traditional Christian anymore. I don't believe in the trappings -- the virgin birth, the resurrection, so on, so forth. But the principles laid out IN THE GOSPELS (not Paul, who I really, really disagree with), if adhered to, would make this world a much, much better place. Love your neighbor, blessed are the peacemakers, don't pray on the street corner for all to see, but pray IN YOUR CLOSET, for Christ's sake. From my perspective, today's religious right is about as far removed from Jesus as they could possibly be.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

254. Does anybody doubt...

if Jesus Christ came to earth today with the same teachings from the New Testament, that today's religious right wouldn't crucify him all over again? Theirs is a gospel smoldering in hatred, and like all fanatics they hate apostates (people like me) even more than they hate atheists and agnostics.

[readmoreoften]

282. Okay, that's just absurd.

To say that right wing evangelicals are a very small minority of American christians is absurd. Maybe if you don't count the right wing calvinist fundamentalists and the hard line catholics, but that is a misrepresentation of the conservative christian movement in this country. The religious left is a tiny minority in this nation.

Unless you consider anti-gay, anti-choice, anti civil liberty radicals to be included in "the religious left" simply because they are anti-war or pro-union or pro-gun control.

Do you really think that the majority of Americans are Unitarians or members of UCC or MCC? Look at the statistics.

[ScreamingMeemie]

195. A dog that's been repeatedly kicked will not come the next time you

call it. :hi:

[_TJ_]

217. Happy Easter everyone !

Don't all the love just fill your heart with joy :7

[Bouncy Ball]

227. LOL!

Well, one thing I'll say, at least this thread has remained civil enough not to get locked! Kudos, DUers!

:toast:

[Cleita]

223. Well, if Christians confined their religious views to the Religion

Forum, then they wouldn't be attacked. When they start spilling their views on GD, they are going to be flamed by those who don't agree with them and all those uncomfortable little facts of history like the pagan origins of Christian holidays are going to be mentioned.

I personally, if I had a religion, would probably be Buddhist or Hindu, but I confine those thoughts to the Astrology and Spiritual Healing Forum because it doesn't belong in GD. I know if I post anything about this in GD I will have those who disagree with me and rightly so.

[_TJ_]

234. When do they spill their views on GD?

Most times religion is brought up it's an atheist attacking without
cause or making a tasteless joke. I'm an atheist but even I can
see that causes hurt feelings.

[Cleita]

248. I have found many of the atheists to be mean spirited and just

as dogmatic as the religious people, which is why I don't post there. I envisioned a forum where people could discuss various religious views and philosophies as well as atheism without offending believers. Instead I found a group of people whose minds were as closed as any fundamentalist of any religion.

As for the religion threads, I hid about seven threads yesterday with religious fights going on and five of them had been started by Christians. So if you step into the frying pan, be prepared to be fried.

[jonnyblitz]

260. if atheists minds were 'open" to religion then we wouldnt be

atheists. I would never go to the atheist forum to discuss religion anymore then i would go to the christian liberal forum to discuss athiesm. those forums are supposed to be havens for people of similar viewpoint. your complaint is akin to somebody complaining about DUers being closeminded because we don't discuss the joys of george bush and conservatisim on here.

[Discord]

278. agreed

was gonna reply with something similar after reading the above post, but decided to see the other reply first.

[Cleita]

285. Enjoy your little narrow view of the world.

I would not presume to interfere. It's not whom I am. As far as discussing George W. Bush and conservatism, we do all the time, or do you only read what you agree with? If we didn't, there wouldn't be any discussion. In much the same way, it could have been informative to discuss the perversion of religious fervor in the Schiavo case with rational minded "atheists" because we all know we can't discuss this with believers. It seems that no matter what you bring up you step on someone's toes, but all of you seem to have only one viewpoint so it wouldn't be much of a discussion would it?

[YankeyMCC]

267. Many?

[jonnyblitz]

263. you are an atheist?

the way you are policing this thread I never would have known just by reading your subject lines.

[_TJ_]

264. Ya gotta stand up for ppl when you agree with their post

Even if you come from a different philosophical background. :)

[markbark]

246. HELP! HELP! I'm Being Repressed!

Come see the violence inherent in the system!

:eyes:


--MAB

[_TJ_]

252. Oh God another comedian

Just what this thread needs! :7

[countryjake]

271. After reading all these posts...

I can't help but think the problem isn't that Christians are feeling provoked, it's that all it takes is one outrageous election & every single person who is NOT a "Christian" will be subject to outright persecution by the majority.

Just as the attacks that happened on 9/11 were construed by the right-wing to be an offense to someone's god & aimed at "freedom & democracy", rather than direct retaliation against American foreign policies, this discussion smacks of a desire by some to ignore the tactics used by the right-wing in achieving their objectives, simply for the sake of garnering more votes or winning an office.

I refuse to be lulled to sleep by the onslaught of "Christian soldiers"; the "better-not-buck-the-trend" Congressional votes & revisionist bills offered by sellout politicians in the name of "Democracy"; or a party which doesn't have the balls to set aside their personal spiritual beliefs in order to defend our Constitution. Those who lightly dismiss the fact that the right of freedom from religious persecution is under attack & instead wonder why so many feel a need to voice opposition to such a popular religion, need to walk a few years in the shoes of the minorities...and then we can discuss it more wisely.

[ultraist]

273. Whatever. Christians are not an oppressed minority group

If I want to express my opinions about Christianity, I will.

[Inland]

277. I'm not sure what being an oppressed minority group has to do with it.

Right is right, wrong is wrong, and the liberal democrats who come to DU don't need your opinions on their religious beliefs any more than you need theirs.

What could be simpler?

[Discord]

279. this is religion... and there is no "right or wrong"

when talking about issues of faith.

you either have it or you dont.

EDITED TO ADD:

Now personal attacks can be defined by right or wrong, but don't forget about the infinate amount of grey between them.

What offends some, wont offend others. Its all in the perception of the reader.

[Name removed]

274. Deleted message

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

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

280. Made my point...Xtians are thin-skinned and prone to dogmatic beliefs.

Christianity is antithetical to a multicultural democracy...unless the tendency for christofascists beliefs are held in check by a secular government (i.e., separation of church/state).

Don't blame me for your deepseated embarrassment and doubt over hitching your wagon to a bunch of fruitloops.

JB

[MollyStark]

289. I am not embarrased by other liberal Christians

I am embarrassed by other intolerant and poorly informed Liberals.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

293. I'm embarrassed by those who hide behind "intolerance" claims.

Give me a fucking break. Atheists are a very small minority in America and are subjected to your Xtian crap daily. Don't DARE presuppose to lecture me about intolerance...you Xtians pretty much define the term.

JB

[MellowOne]

281. I'm have a strong relationship with Jesus

But I'm very liberal. Always in trouble with my views.

But then, Jesus was always in trouble as well. He rebelled against the religious order of the day, Jewish religion. He called the Jewish leaders a brood of vipers.

He drank wine, and they called him a drunk. He ate with sinners, healed prostitues, and they called him a glutton and a sinner as well.

He was a rebel just like me.

[AlCzervik]

296. wow, first you quote his views about the jewish faith

and then you compare yourself to him, thats pretty gutsy. I hope you don't do that in your everyday life.

[Cuban_Liberal]

283. The 'cafeteria Christian' meme is maddening!

Because one does not accept 100% of one's Chruch's teachings on every conceivable subject, one is dismissed as being a 'cafeteria Christian'. The same folks freely tossing about this epithet would be incensed if you called them 'cafeteria Democrats', or 'cafeteria liberals' by pointing out that they don't accept 100% of the Democratic party's platform (NAFTA, welfare reform, etc.,). Yet, because we are Christans, it is somehow acceptable to attack us in this fashion.

Yeah, that makes sense...

:eyes:

[Dookus]

290. But the Democratic Party does not claim

to hold the key to my salvation. Some of us don't understand how one can grant certain authority to the church, while simultaneously ignoring those teachings one personally disagrees with.

[Cuban_Liberal]

291. Some of us are confused why it matters to some of you?

The analogy is quite apt, and we are free to wonder the same thing about those hwo disagree with the Democratic party, are we not?

[Dookus]

292. Why it matters to me

has been discussed thousands of times before. Your church is actively working against my interests, so I try to keep abreast of what it's doing.

Now please explain how your analogy is apt? How does the Democratic Party control my salvation? There is NO penalty for me not believing or adhering to the Democratic party line. That is not analogous to Catholics whose very salvation is threatened by not following some church teachings.

[Cuban_Liberal]

295. I'm not taking the bait, Dookus.

I'm not going to convince you, and you're certainly not going to convince me.

Ciao.

[Dookus]

306. Interesting..

you poted in ATA that this is a discussion that needs to be had, but then you won't have it.

My problem with "cafeteria catholics" is a straightforward one: if YOU get to pick and choose which tenets to follow, why are you offended when others choose not to follow the tenets you follow?

[Cuban_Liberal]

317. I'm sorry, Dookus, but you want to frame the debate to suit yourself.

That's why you and I can't have the discussion.

Peace.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

319. Please Dookus..just so as he says, not as he does and get it over with

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

310. I think the truth hurts

[Cuban_Liberal]

316. Maybe both truths hurt. n/t

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

318. Only when crammed down others' throats.

See, one's religion is for one's OWN spiritual guidance. When used for that it is a beautiful thing. It seems, however, that a CAFETERIA CATHOLIC would cram certain dogma down the throats of others but when confronted on areas where their own life doesn't measure up to the dogma would claim they simply disagree with the dogma.

That, in essence, is hitting others over the head with one's dogma while dodging the very real issues one needs to consider.

[Cuban_Liberal]

322. Oh baloney!

Once again, the old 'believe all of it or none of it' meme. So, if Democratic Senator A disgarees with the party on Bill C, (s)he should leave the party?

What utter crap.

:eyes:

[AlCzervik]

286. It seems to me that the extremists are the one who get the air time

so you need to put a different face on your religeon.

[Wat_Tyler]

298. To be entirely honest, there are several Christian posters

who are way too touchy about discussion of such issues. Let's not frame this as an attack on Christians - there's plenty of assholes on the side of the angels here too.

[The Magistrate]

300. Several Small Points, Mr. Inland

First, you are correct that Christianity is a fragmented religion with many sects of various sizes. It would seem to me to follow from that that criticism of the thing is mostly directed at one element or another of that body, and not at some other element. There is no need for people who do not adhere to a partricular element being criticized to take the criticism of it as directed at themselves. It seems to me a person who does that volunteers himself for an object of criticism in many cases, and may be mis-interperting the intention of the person who makes the criticism.

Second, there is no creed on the planet that cannot be critiqued intelligently. That some people may conduct a critique of one poorly hardly invalidates the whole enterprise. Even the adherents of any particular creed must necessarily have satisfied themselves that other creeds fail in some debilitating measure, after all. There is a reason a Christian is not a Moslem or a Jew, and a reason a Bhuddist is not a Christian or a Taoist: there is even a reason a Catholic is not a Lutheran and a Lutheran is not a Baptist or a Quaker. Someone once said the difference between an athiest and a believer is that the athiest simply believes in one less diety, and to my view there is a good deal of point to that comment.

Third, given the fragmented character of Christianity, on which we are in agreement as a matter of fact, it would seem to follow that it is quite possible the views of some elements of Christianity could certainly be incompatible with liberal, left and progressive views, just as some could be compatible with these. Indeed, it is an obvious fact of our political life today that several prominent Christian sects direct their followers to reactionary views as a matter of policy, and that these constitute the mass support of reaction in our country's electoralm contests.

Fourth, what you call "hitting a nerve" may not be an indication a statement makes a valid point, but it certainly can, in some instances, indicate just that. In debate particularly, a person concious of slurring over some point in their arguments will react with a startled flurry when the soft spots are worked by a competent adversary, who will certainly take such reaction as an indication the point is apt for further probing.

Fifth, it is a political reality that, in this country, fundamentalist theocrats of Christian hue are the only political force either attempting to impose their beliefs on the body politic, or having any real propspect of success in doing so. This may not be true in other places, but it is true here. Thus, opposition to the imposition of a particular religious view on the people of this country must necessarily take the coloratuion of opposition to the imposition of a particular Christian view upon the government, laws, and society of our country: no none else is attempting it, or has any prospect of success at it. Certainly it is actually the general case that is opposed, and just as certainly no believer, or body of believers, has any right to so impose itself on the conscience of others who do not share their views. Indeed, no believer in any creed has the right to expect, even, let alone require, any other individual to abide in any way by his or her views of religious matters.

Allow me to close by saying something it is probably not necessary to say, but that it might nonetheless be adviseable to state openly: the above is no more than the expression of my personnal views in this question, which is indeed a vexed one that people of good heart and sound intellect may well find themselves taking diametrically opposed positions over.

[Susang]

309. Well stated

As usual! :hi:

[Qanisqineq]

307. even as an atheist, I agree with you

I don't want people to be degrading about my beliefs or lack thereof and I don't think anyone should flame Christians/Jews/Muslims/etc. Many posts on DU about Christians offend me and I'm an atheist. I am also smart enough to realize that you are not saying everyone here on DU degrades Christians (which I'm sure many of the previous posts are about).

[Tomee450]

312. Thank you. Excellent post.

[Moderator]

321. Locking.

This thread has turned into a flamewar.

[Name removed]

323. Deleted message

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