'Critical analysis' vs. Insults re: Christianity and DU

[WilliamPitt]

The coming of Easter has given rise to the annual barrage of nonsense thrown at DU Christians. When people who are Christians here react with offense, we are greeted with "Why can't you and Jesus deal with some critical analysis?" or something along those lines.

Is calling Christianity a 'death cult' a critical analysis or an insult? I've seen that posted here, and I found it personally insulting.

Is calling someone's personal religion a 'fairy tale' a critical analysis or an insult? I've seen that posted here, and I found it personally insulting.

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

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.

[mike_c]

1. stepping back for a moment....

Surely you realize that your comments apply to nearly EVERY topic discussed here? Some responses to any topic will likely be knee-jerk and others will be considered and analytical. I don't think discussions about christianity are any different in that regard-- and in particular, I don't think christianity has been targetted for insult to any greater degree than most other topics. I'm not sure you should expect otherwise in as diverse a community as DU. That might not always reflect well on us, but I don't think any other expectations are quite realistic.

[WilliamPitt]

2. A good point

but I guess the timing of it, with Easter and all, makes it especially galling. But you're right; this could be applied to any number of subjects.

What does that say about us? Does the fact that we are 'diverse' excuse insulting behavior?

[mike_c]

14. actually, I think your response says something important about...

...how we all deal with adversity and with diversity. EVERYONE is sensitive in some regard, no matter how thick skinned we might be generally, and it's easy to see conspiracies and bullies when our particular buttons are pushed.

Further, we're all much more likely to respond emotionally to subjects that are especially meaningful to us. I re-read your OP, and was struck by the extent to which references to christianity as a "death cult" might in fact be quite reasonable to a dispassionate observer but an incitement to riot for a devout christian who does not want to see that side of their faith. But let's not get derailed by that particular issue-- my point is that not only can we expect a diverse collection of responses to any discussion here, but we should also expect an equally diverse array of sensitivities to criticism. The line between "critical thinking" and "bite me" is a lot blurrier than many of us probably recognize.

[Bouncy Ball]

44. mike_c great post.

:thumbsup:

[iconoclastNYC]

59. A suggestion: Avoid DU on your sensitive days, like Easter.

To ask non christians to be walk on eggshells around Easter is really funny to me.

[JerseygirlCT]

62. I didn't hear eggshells there (and was that an Easter joke?)

I heard a plea for civility and thoughtfulness.

I'm not insulted by a debate on my faith -- I love that stuff! But I find name-calling to be of little use in furthering debate or persuading others to your point of view, for that matter.

[iconoclastNYC]

68. I find this whole discussion silly

Since you can just ignore the threads and whatnot, i just think it was silly for Mr. Pitt to say, yeah well, its really bad on EASTER, a holiday only for Xtians. Do we need to memorize all the religious holidays for every faith to be in compliance with Mr. Pitt's sensitivity dictates?

And no the eggshells wasn't a joke but I laughed when you pointed that out ;)

[jdj]

either xtians are special or they aren't.

some of my "sensitive issues" are feminism and animal rights, and guess what, I'm still here, believe it or not, despite all the biting insults and disregard.

I know if I can take it, the xtians can. It's X supposed to give them all this strength, anyway?

[Lerkfish]

108. the difference might be that in those cases, I would more likely than not

stand up for your points and support you as a DU member against those who insulted you.

That would happend because I respect your right to speak, even if I disagree with you say.

I haven't happened upon a thread where you were so treated, but I would be happy to stand by your side in that thread if you would point it out.

[jdj]

257. Don't do me any favors, Jesus Jr.

That "I'm a martyr like Christ" shit is nauseating, I was raised in it, and there is no worse a stench.

That you can't even see the arrogance and disingenuousness of that post makes it stink even worse.

Get off the fucking cross. Don't you get it? Jesus was PUT on the cross, you people hang yourselves up there in some sort of masturbatory display, and then expect the rest of the world to be bowled over with awe. I don't give a damn, I've got other things to do.

The point is not that I expect you to defend me, because I can take care of myself, and know your fake affectation of martyrdom is a public display.

THE POINT IS that I expect you to be able to take it on the chin on an anonymous internet website like the rest of the heathens here and not ask for special rights and privileges based on your preferred mythology.

Aren't you people ashamed of yourselves??? Your patron saint got a crown of thorns, a sword in the side, and nails driven through his wrists and feet, and you all can't bear a few insults? The blood sure runs thin on down the vine, doesn't it?

[Arugula Latte]

118. Hey, stop talking about eggs.

I'm a pagan and Christians have stolen my symbols, including eggs and rabbits (fertility and all, you know). I'm sensitive about it, and when you talk about eggs it really galls me, on this day of all days. ;)

[CBHagman]

267. Not walking on eggshells, just not stereotyping, etc.

What I've seen in abundance on DU is a tendency to indulge one's worst impulses when it comes to posting on the topics such as Christianity, Mormonism, etc. The term "fundy" is tossed around with abandon regarding any evangelical Christian. The Roman Catholic Eucharist has been openly mocked (not discussed from a theological standpoint, merely derided). Other posters jeer at Mormons' practice of wearing a special garment as part of their observance.

None of these posts made any headway in the discussion, and they did a lot to create the impression that DUers are inclined to intellectual laziness, stereoptyping, and garden-variety snottiness. None of the posters referred to above came off as champions of progressive causes; they merely sounded insensitive and immature.

[ginnyinWI]

85. I don't think there ever is an excuse for insulting behavior

It doesn't work to convince anyone of anything.

The Christians here should maybe try harder to sensitize DU to the fact that there is a big difference between liberal Christians and the "Self-Righteous Right" kind of Christian.

[Lerkfish]

106. well, if my neighbor's dog bites me, is it then my responsibilty

to keep the dog on a leash, or is it the neighbor's?

Although I understand why you would say "The Christians here should maybe try harder to sensitize DU to the fact that there is a big difference between liberal Christians and the "Self-Righteous Right" kind of Christian.", the fact is we have been, but it falls on deaf ears.

Now, am I responsible for those deaf ears, or are the people who have the deaf ears responsible?

I am constantly making the distinction, at which point I'm labeled "thin-skinned". Even if I do manage to correct them, then I'm expected to go and magically change all the conservative christians until they think more like I do.

Why is that MY responsibility to correct someone else's rigid stereotype, especially as it gains me nothing in the discussion with that person to make that attempt?
I will correct them once or twice, but after that, if they persist, I ignore them. I cannot run through a brick wall.

[ginnyinWI]

122. No you're not responsible for them

People should pay attention and learn the distinction for themselves. If they've been told more than once, and still don't get it, then there isn't much anyone can do. But some do learn, and that's a good thing. If you've spoken up, then you've done all you need to do, and then some.

I guess my point was that it is up to the people who are being misunderstood to do something about it, just like women and minorities have had to fight for equal rights in this country. Not fair, but then this isn't a fair world. The majority doesn't trouble itself to change, otherwise. Maybe this is making too much of the issue, but I think the pattern fits.

[Lerkfish]

142. Thank you, excellent post.

and valid points.

But, as I said, there are many of us who have tried and tried to make the distinction, but everytime there is a religious thread, its like reinventing the wheel over and over again.

I'd much prefer people simply made points about the issue, instead of attempting to pin others against the wall and force them to endure an inquisition about their beliefs simply to participate in a discussion.

and yes, I intentionally used the ironic term "inquisition". To make a point.

[Tansy_Gold]

150. I may have been guilty of some insensitive remarks on occasion,

but as another poster said, it's not just the Christians on DU who get insulted. I've been on the radical feminist side of some issues where women have been called everything but the four-letter-word-that-isn't-allowed-on-DU, and I don't see anyone standing up for us.

But there's another issue, which may be addressed down-thread and I just haven't got to it yet, and that's the changing nature of the DU congregation /sic/. There are always new folks coming on board, and they aren't always fully indoctrinated, meaning they don't always read the rules. I suspect some of the insulters also end up amongst the citizens of Boot Hill.

As for the long-time DUers, if someone feels routinely and repeatedly insulted by someone, there's always the ignore button or the alert button.

Of course, some of us prefer the preach button.




Tansy Gold, saving her insults for another thread

[madison2000]

183. in my experience most of the most insensitive remarks on this board

come from long time DUers, who think they have special rights to mock and ridicule other people...

[Inland]

199. Which the mods have called us on, and has dropped significantly, IMO.

[madison2000]

207. well, I'm talking about yesterday and today so I don't know how

much worse it was before that

[Inland]

208. I didn't see yesterday or today, but I saw it every day a month ago.

Now I don't see many references to a low post count at all.

[madison2000]

213. I'm not talking about low post counts

I'm talking about posters who have been here for a long time and know the rules not following the rules when it comes to mocking Christians- all of whom have over 1000 posts.

[Inland]

215. My mistake.

I was under the impression you were taling about the big numbers calling out the low posters as freepers.

[QC]

232. "Some responses to any topic will likely be knee-jerk..."

Unfortunately, it seems like about three-quarters of the posts here on any given subject lately are knee-jerk drive-by one-liners. That wasn't always the case, but an awful lot of people now seem to think it's the height of wit and intelligence to stop by every thread and drop a turd.

[On the Road]

3. Absolutely!

I am ex-believer who stills reads on church history and Biblical issues. Some of the rhetoric here should be confined to atheist-only discussions, which DU is NOT. I forget who it was who couldn't understand why his post was locked for calling the resurrection a "scam."

It's a good exercise to have some evangelical friends and not get into disputes with them. My parents and brother are 700-club types, and it's a real challenge. But it can be done, and it's worthwhile.

[qazplm]

4. been an agnostic as long as i can remember lol

but i agree that christianity (and other "things" such as soldiers) get overly painted with a broad brush here at times.

To quote ebony and ivory "there is good and bad, in everyone..."

There, my attempt at levity. ;)

[Telly Savalas]

71. Ebony and Ivory?!? AHHHH!! Lock the thread before it sinks any further!!!!

:o

[jdj]

74. I'm so over xtians thinking they should be exempt from criticism

:puke:

maybe DU needs to make a special forum where people can go specifically to vent about this group that is trying to bring about armageddon and end life as we know it.

Maybe people should complain to the admins that since there is an I/P forum, why isn't there an "American Christians vs. the world" forum.

I've been insulted by so many different people in so many different ways here it's not even funny. I've been told by a straight person I wasn't being gay correctly, told that because I was concerned about the murder of children that I didn't care about adult women enough, yada, yada, yada.

I see this whole issue differently. It seems to me that xtians are the only ones that periodically have the nerve to post threads suggesting that because of this extra special characteristic, they should be exempt from criticism on this topic. They, and only they, should be handled with kid gloves, while the rest of us heathens of various and sundry affiliations should just expect to be skewered on a regular basis.

ROFLMAO.

[QC]

233. And I'm over people who post straw men in response to serious arguments.

Looks like you and I are even.

[jdj]

256. give me a break.

this argument is serious because it's about "religion". If one is insulted for any other reason, that's a strawman?

Tori Amos said it best: stop throwing up your hands saying "drive another nail in. Just what God needs, one more victim."

Wah.

[Ron Green]

5. I agree. Even if critical analysis is not part of a belief system, it

should be part of what we do here as we learn from each other. The fact that Jesus became such a major force, because of the clarity and truth of his message as well as the consolidation of power by Rome, is the very reason that it's often open season on all Christians when a few of the "Christians" on the wacko end of the spectrum misbehave. It's always easy to pick on the dominant culture, whether it's white Anglo-Saxons in all their permutations or the Christian Church in all of its forms.

[Mizmoon]

6. Thank you Will

I agree with you and I haven't set foot in a church in years ...

[MissB]

7. DU's General Discussion is probably not the place to undertake

a critical analysis of Christianity and all of the possible issues surrounding Christianity.

It is a message board, for crying in a bucket. If people offend, hit alert.

Or we could just pit the various factions of DU against each other. And start more flamefests.

Wugh.

[SpaceBuddy008]

223. Mr. Pitt, but you were cursing alot at Christmas time

had to interject here

cuz it stuck in my mind that you were cursing in yr. titles around
Christmas time

and now you started this silly thread and looks like you now disappeared till at least comment #211

13. As Soon As M***** F****** Possible Thu Dec-23-04 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #12 @ http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=191969&mesg_id=192016&page=
*****


Thu Dec-23-04 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #16

17. God dammit


@ http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=192674&mesg_id=192999&page=

plus you posted on Xmas eve about relentless masturbation ,no kiddin'

*****
Now we have a thread by Will Pitt, for example, that asks how we're all doing, which everyone answers, but he never got back and commented on. Strange.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x349433

comment from current post on Election Discussion

title= Action on this board is dwindling
*****

look at what was said in #177 said after a member summed it up nicely in #169

"this whole topic has dominated my thoughts all day to the point


of where I can't concentrate or accomplish anything else. the time you took to develop your thoughts for this post were worth it for me."

other sensible comments #68 #108 #115 #9 #34 #48 #169


is this productive over a tempest in a teapot, from one poster
who did not take the time to even cite the examples of offense

frivolous misdirection when we need focused, united, tenacious and determined RESPONSE ABILITY...prowess

one person's feigned sensitivity can lead to all this rigamorro?

ignore or alert not bore or divert

disturbs me a little that i had to take the time to point this out

but some of your posts are becoming insulting to the truth discovery process

well you started it so check out the work of a rennaissance woman who devoted YEARS of her life to studying Christianity's origins

"The Christian religion and Masonry have one and the same common origin: Both are derived from the worship of the Sun. The difference between their origin is, that the Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun."
Thomas Paine

Contrary to popular belief, there was no single man at the genesis of Christianity but many characters rolled into one, the majority of whom were personifications of the ubiquitous solar myth, whose exploits were well known, as reflected by such popular deities as Mithra, Heracles/Hercules, Dionysus and many others throughout the Roman Empire and beyond.

The story of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels is revealed to be nearly identical in detail to that of the earlier savior-gods Krishna and Horus, who for millennia preceding Christianity held great favor with the people in much the same way as Jesus does today.

Thus, the Jesus character is not unique or original, not "divine revelation." These redeemer tales are similar not because they reflect the actual exploits of a variety of men who did and said the identical things, but because they are representations of the same extremely ancient body of knowledge that revolved around the celestial bodies and natural forces. The result of this mythmaking has been The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold.

Introduction
Excerpted from the forthcoming book

Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled
by Acharya S

The reproaching cry of heretic, infidel, atheist, etc., will be raised against the author of these lectures, by every fiery intolerant bigot into whose hand they may fall. But he alone is the true infidel who forsakes the laws of his nature, and gives up his mind to a belief in fabulous and demoralizing legends, which contradict all experience, and stand in opposition to the testimony of his own sense and reason.

Christian Mythology Unveiled, 1842

While the Western world begins its new millennium, little has changed in terms of religious understanding, and the world in general continues to be divided largely along the lines of faith. The proselytizers, proponents and propagandists of these various faiths persist in fighting over bodies and souls, in an endless religious tug-of-war that has ruined culture, wrecked minds and wreaked havoc. It also invades privacy and stomps all over individual rights.

Religion is motivated by fear and insecurity: People want to believe, in God, Jesus, Krishna, Buddha something, anything, so as not to feel so alone, helpless and forgotten. Life is a cruel, sadistic torment in countless places around the globe. This fact should create more questions than it does about whether or not there is any good god in charge of everything and whether or not religion has any value in the first place.

Yet, in the face of tragedy, rationality and logic fail to win out over powerlessness that desperately needs to believe in the Other, somewhere "out there." What this insight reveals is that God is a popular concept not because people have reasoned it through and proved it true, but because humans are terrified of the opposite notion: If God is not, all is for naught.

The concepts of God and religion have varied greatly over the millennia, in the sense that they have been developed within cultural contexts, with odd details and interpretations based chiefly on race, gender, language and environment.

Thus, goddess worship rather than god worship dominated in a variety of places globally for thousands of years, and gods and goddesses often have been of the same color and mentality, and speaking the same language, as the culture in which they are developed.

These variances have led to a horrendous amount of suffering and terror, as fanatics of sundry religions, sects, cults, etc., have believed themselves superior to all the rest, and have attempted to force themselves upon everyone else. This aggressive behavior also is out of insecurity, as beliefs are flimsy things, and it is imagined that the more people who believe, the more these beliefs will be real. Not so, unless as a phantasmagoria, a nightmare.

Although it is often useless to attempt to argue logic in the religious arena, which frequently bases itself on illogic and blind faith, one must ask how an "omnipresent" god that is, everywhere present can be contained in one religion or another. If "God" is omnipresent, then "he" is in all ideologies and texts, whether sacred or secular. Even atheist writings would be "of God," if the omnipresence of "monotheism" were correct in its premise. In reality, the line between monotheism and pantheism is very slight and exists only in the mind of the believer.

The difference between theism and atheism is also very slight, therefore. Indeed, it is evident that the human mind has the capacity to be monotheistic, polytheistic, pantheistic and atheistic all at the same time.

Between the zealous believer and the hardcore atheist, the latter is frequently more savvy, having considered the subject of God and come to conclude, through rationality and integrity, that no such being as portrayed in the monotheist religions could possibly exist. When confronted with the paradox of why, if there is some omnipotent god person in charge of everything, there could be such pain and horror in this world, the blind believer can only make excuses for this purported creator.

For example, the devil somehow got the better of him, even though God is supposedly all knowing and all powerful. And if all pervasive, i.e., everywhere present, he must also be in the devil! In fact, God must be the devil. In some cultures, he is: For instance, the Old Testament god Yahweh was logically the orchestrator of evil as well as of good, since he was all powerful.

A more sophisticated argument leaving out the devil, a concept that tends to provoke giggles these days from the more sensible segment of society is that God is "testing" us with all this horror and trauma. This concept of a horrible god who would constantly be tormenting and torturing his puny little creatures is exactly what creates atheists.

It is very difficult for the thinking and feeling person to consider the atrocities that have plagued life on this planet to be the product of a "good" god. In other words, the paradoxical concept of an all-powerful "good" god who would nonetheless be either helpless to stop atrocity, or is actually the architect of evil, cannot but create dishonesty and a lack of integrity. Furthermore, much of this horror is actually because of the belief in God in the first place.

The Intolerance of Religion
In this day and age, when the world becomes smaller than ever before, there is an increasing need for investigation and education in religion, as it is one of the most important and volatile of all human issues.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/

[southlandshari]

237. What the f@#$ does that have to do with anything?

Does posting a four letter word (or two, or ten, or more) forever revoke Will Pitt's right to post on issues of Christianity or faith in general? What relevance do the past posts you dug up have on the discussion at hand? This is the kind of stuff I'd expect from right wing fundamentalists, which you clearly are not. Argue the point if you disagree, but the morality police approach isn't effective here.

[Beetwasher]

8. Hmmm, Well, With Regard To Your Judaism Example

Judaism doesn't usually and regularly invite that sort of criticism (not to excuse the people who DO paint w/ broad strokes, but merely saying SOME of the criticism IS kind of invited). While Jews DO have their fundamentalist sects, usually they keep to themselves and don't go prosletyzing (as much) or try to get the laws of the country changed to force judaism on others (or defy the law to do so). The same can't be said for the fundy whackjobs (and the people in power now) who do what they do, and with much nutty and vomit inducing visibility, in the name of your religion.

[WilliamPitt]

10. The man who shot Rabin in the back

was as fundy as any of the goofballs in the Schiavo parking lot, and he wore a yarmeluke. If I were to compare all Jews to that man, I'd get my head taken off.

[Beetwasher]

24. Yes, He's A Nut

But you'd have to agree that in general, it's the Xtian fundy nuts who make the most noise and who want to change the US into a Xtian theocracy. I don't know of any Jewish groups w/ the goals of turning the US into a Jewish theocracy, nor very many Jewish groups who demand that their religion be taught in schools as science, that their scriptures be the basis for US law etc.

[Jack Rabbit]

39. That's one of the points

He was a nut. So are some of the Christians in front of the Pinellas Park hospice.

We wouldn't tar all Jews because of Yigal Amir and we should condemn Christianity because on the perversions of Randall Terry.

[Beetwasher]

45. But There's Differences

that I've pointed out. I don't believe in tarring or painting w/ broad strokes. Personally, I don't do it. However, much of the criticism is justified (not of ALL Xtians, but of THESE Xtians). You wouldn't and don't see the jews doing what the fundy Xtians are doing outside TS's hospice.

Those people are nuts, but they have a LOT of power in our gov't and ARE trying to turn this country into a theocracy. The Jews AREN'T doing that nor do they WANT to do that. And unfortunately for non-crazy Xtians it makes their religion look bad in general especially when they don't stand up and denounce the loonies (and not many of them have, you have to admit).

[Jack Rabbit]

60. Fine and well

However, we should be very careful in who we are criticizing and how we criticize. It's OK to say that some Christians believe that they have a right to impose their will on us without much discussion about it because they perceive it as God's will and that this is a violation of democratic principles. That, although stated briefly, could be defended by a critical analysis of the role of religion in a pluralistic, democratic state.

I think it is wrong, certainly poor taste and most definitely bad public relations to say some of things I've seen even on this thread (e.g., "Christianity is a death cult"). That is just an insult.

Christianity is not monolithic. It would be absurd to put Randall Terry in the same boat as St. Francis.

And, I think Democrats can make inroads into what has been as of late a Republican constituency. However, we will not be able to if we continue to speak disrespectfully of other people's religious beliefs. See post 33.

[Beetwasher]

67. Wrong? No. Poor Taste? Maybe...

I will grant that people who say "Christianity is a death cult" are probably looking for a flame war though, but I would hesitate to say it's WRONG to say that. Offensive? Rude? I'm sure it is to some people, but it's not wrong, it's freedom of speech and one persons opinion. This is an internet discussion board after all and we're certainly NOT emblematic of the Dem party, so I wouldn't base any argument on the possibility that our little corner of the internet is going to dissuade any large segement of the population from voting Dem because some anonymous moron called Xtianity a death cult on DU. :shrug:

[ultraist]

211. That nut is an exception to the rule

Very few Jewish groups, if any, are pushing for a theocracy, based on their beliefs. We don't see Jewish rabbis on tv every fucking night preaching their nonsense and offending all non Jewish people as we see the "Christians" offending all non Christians.

We don't see Jewish groups protesting at Gay rallies, calling Gays sinners. We don't see Jewish groups calling women who have abortion murderers.

We don't have a regressive fundie Jewish president and Congress. We have a "born again" Christian President and a "Christian" controlled Congress.

If I have to hear one more Christian Bible quote in a political discussion or on the "news" I'm going to puke.

[endarkenment]

115. isn't your post here an example of the very thing

you are complaining about?

"fundy as any of the goofballs" is highly insulting to devout evangelical christians and orthodox jews, right?

We are watching the hideous co-joining of militarism, corporatism, and religious extremism, the deliberate development of a fascist-theocratic republic, and you are concerned about some posts here that, in their outrage at events, are using too broad a brush?

[Zenlitened]

217. Nicely said.

We are watching the hideous co-joining of militarism, corporatism, and religious extremism, the deliberate development of a fascist-theocratic republic, and you are concerned about some posts here that, in their outrage at events, are using too broad a brush?

:thumbsup:

[Postmanx]

11. So Christians are asking for it by being visible?

I guess gays are asking to be bashed, women are asking to be raped and Muslims are asking to be profiled too. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Beetwasher]

27. Where Did I Say That?

What a load of crap. Too bad I didn't say that. But you go ahead and argue against something I didn't say and make shit up. How intellectually dishonest of you.

[JanMichael]

22. I think you mean in this country. If I was in Palestine I'd probably be...

...much more worried about Jewish wingnuts than the American Christian Taliban.

And my comments on a website, if I had access, would likely be offensive to those of the Jewish faith. As an atheist Palestinian I'd have quite the bone to pick with the founders of the monotheistic religions that are ruining my life. That'd include Radical Islam.

It's really a matter of perspective.

[Beetwasher]

30. Indeed it Is A Matter of Perspective

and yes, we're discussing religion in THIS country where a certain loudmouthed minority (the fundy's) are trying to force their religion on the rest of us, and they deserve and invite criticism for it.

[MollyStark]

83. I have a big problem with Israel

To me that seems like a major invite to criticism of Judiasm. I manage to separate my issues with Israel from Jews in general.

[Beetwasher]

86. Well, It's Easy To Do

Because Israel isn't a theocracy. I'm Jewish and I have my problems w/ Israel too.

[Inland]

114. Not so fast!

Those were the OLD days. Nowadays, the christian fundies and the jewish fundies are in perfect alignment--you have your country and your communities, and we have ours, and each should have its own religious rules. Oh, and everyone is against the muslims.

The fact that the jewish religious rightwingers are a small minority doesn't make any difference--after all, the christian fundies are a minority among christians, and they wouldn't reach out unless the j. fundies provided valuable support or cover.

[Beetwasher]

116. Uhh, I Don't Think So

First of all, I'm not a Jewish fundy, so watch your use of the word "you".

So are you saying you're a fundy?

"Nowadays, the christian fundies and the jewish fundies are in perfect alignment--you have your country and your communities, and we have ours, and each should have its own religious rules."

:shrug:

Israel is not a theocracy and Jewish groups aren't running around in everyone's face trying to force judaism on everyone and turn THIS country into a theocracy based on Jewish law. The Xtian fundies ARE doing that.

[Inland]

126. Yeah, I am semantically ambiguous

I use "you" as I was paraphrasing the fundies, not because I am one of them.

The fundie Christians are perfectly willing to allow the fundamentalist Jews control over their small communities, as long as the same rules apply for the larger communities. It's the minorities in either community who get shut out.

And Israel is a religious state, by and for Jews. The fundies in Israel are busy forcing judaism on the Jews: the official rabinate controls marriages, kosher rules, what runs on the Sabbath, conversions, exemptions from the draft.

There aren't forcible conversions, but then again, you can't build a mosque or a church without government approval, either, and bills have been introduced making proselytizing a crime--although I suspect that anyone proselytizing now just gets deported.

It's not so bad, as repressions go, but it isn't America and it isn't separation of church and state and it isn't religious freedom as we know it.

[Beetwasher]

127. You're Wrong About Israel

Israel's gov't is secular. It is NOT a religious state by any definition of the word. There are fundy's there who wish it were and may try to make it so, but it's not. If it were then NOTHING would run on Sabbath, just as an example.

"The fundie Christians are perfectly willing to allow the fundamentalist Jews control over their small communities, as long as the same rules apply for the larger communities. It's the minorities in either community who get shut out."

As far as I can tell the fundy Xtians are NOT perfectly willing to do this if you're doing something in your community they don't agree with, like getting an abortion for example. So they are NOT perfectly willing to do any such thing.

[Inland]

134. Oh, my.

Israel's government is most certainly NOT secular. It is, by its own statement, a Jewish state.

You confuse a Jewish state with forcible conversions. So the religious authorities decide when and where I get to drive, for religious reasons. They decide not only who gets married, but by whom. They decide who is a Jew. Its the state.

As for abortion, I suppose that is a point, but not that good of one. It still doesn't change the fact that in AMerican, christian fundies are joining with the Jewish conservative religious groups, and to each his own.

That's why Israel is such a strong point with the fundies. One is the millenarial thing, but the other is that Israel is exactly what the fundies want for America. America will be a Christian state, bowing to Christian sensibilities. The equivalent of banning traffic will occur. Religious christian schools, and chrisitian churches, will be funded. The majority will rule on how much the minority gets, in terms of recognition and practice. They'll be fair and kind, to the extent they feel they can, but when push comes to shove.... And the jews that don't like it--well, they can emigrate, just as christians in muslim countries and Israel can immigrate here, in the short run.

[Beetwasher]

135. Do You Know What The Word Secular Means?

I don't think you do. Israel's gov't is secular. It's a Jewish state only in that it's a haven for Jews and because of the "right of return" and automatic citizenship for all jews. It's a place for them to go, but it is NOT RUN ACCORDING TO JEWISH LAW. It is NOT a theocracy, the laws are NOT based upon the bible. It most certainly IS secular in that sense. I will admit it's a unique secular state, but the laws of the land are NOT religious and are made by a democratically elected gov't...

I am not the one who is confused. Forcible conversions have nothing to do with it. They most certainly do NOT decide where you get to drive, plenty of people in Israel drive on the Sabbath, they do NOT decide who gets married or who marries who. That's absurd and I have no idea where you got that from. The Israeli gov't does NO SUCH THING.
Many (if not most) Israeli's are NOT religious.

You are woefully misinformed about Israel. Israel is a secular democracy. Religion has no place in the crafting of it's laws, with the exception of welcoming all jews to live there.

Your last paragraph is interesting if a bit nutty. Yes, the kindler gentler theocratic fascism. :eyes: You sound almost as if you know exactly what the fundies want and you're ok with it...You realize that vision would mean essentially scrapping the constitution don't you?

[Inland]

198. It's not secular.

To say that religion has no place in crafting the laws is simply false.

First, the law of return is not secular. Who, for example, decides who is a Jew and able to return? How do you think THAT rule came about? Religion.

Second, marriage, divorce, are ruled by expressly religious law. The fact that each citizen is assigned a his own religious law doesn't make it secular. It's simply religion enforced by the state. There ISN't a civil marriage for Jews yet. There ISN'T a civil divorce.

Third, the funds for building and the rabbis come from the state, which enforces a religious orthodoxy among Jews.

Well, that's enough. Any one of those is enough to put the lie to a "secular state."




Any state where I have to get a clergyman to pass on my marriage or my divorce or my conversion isn't secular.

[Beetwasher]

249. You Don't Know What You're Talking About

First of all, I never said the law of return was secular. Where did you get that from? :shrug: Dude, seriously, learn how to comprehend what you read.

"It's a Jewish state only in that it's a haven for Jews and because of the "right of return" and automatic citizenship for all jews."

Read that again if you don't get it. I'm not saying that's what makes it secular, I'm saying THAT is why it's a Jewish state. Hint: this is why Israel is unique and this part of it is NOT secular.

"Second, marriage, divorce, are ruled by expressly religious law. The fact that each citizen is assigned a his own religious law doesn't make it secular. It's simply religion enforced by the state. There ISN't a civil marriage for Jews yet. There ISN'T a civil divorce."

Ummm, wtf are you talking about? This is gobbledy gook. I can't make heads or tails of what the fuck your talking about. Each citizen is assigned his own religious law??? Seriously, WTF are you talking about? Do you mean that the state recognizes each religious denominations marriage ceremonies and practices? So what? That doesn't mean JEWISH and it doesn't mean religion enforced by the state. If your Xtian, you get a Xtian church or priest to marry you in Israel (they do exist) and it's perfectly acceptable and the state recognizes the marriage.

Put up or shut up. Show me proof that the state enforces a religious orthodoxy among jews. That's total bullshit. It does no such thing. Do you even know any Israelis, have you ever been to Israel, or are you just talking out of your ass?

Umm, you don't have to get a religious clergyman to pass on your marriage in Israel. Again, put up or shut up. That's bullshit and I don't know where you heard it. Plenty of non-jews get married and divorced in Israel.

Seriously, go talk to an Israeli, you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.

From Israel's official state website:

Over the years, a body of case law has developed through Supreme Court rulings which protect civil liberties, including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and equality as fundamental values of Israel's legal system. In its capacity as a High Court of Justice and acting as the court of first and last instance, the Supreme Court also hears petitions brought by individuals appealing for redress against any government body or agent.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/State/THE+STATE-+The+Law+of+the+Land.htm

[The Devils Advocate]

9. Would you listen to a critical analysis

of christianity as a death cult without seeing it as an insult? If someone produced a scholarly interpretation, would you see it as such, or would you dismiss it out of hand?

I think there are many "Marxists" here at DU, and as you well know, Marxists see religion as the hallucinogenic of the people. These DUers consider ALL religion to be an aspect of control exerted by human agents. To them, religion is mind-control, belief in fairy-tails, perhaps even a form of mental illness. They believe they are helping the world by pointing this out. Is it insulting for them to make their assertions?

[WilliamPitt]

12. I would indeed

Tone, as you know, is an important aspect of any discussion.

[savannahana]

186. sincere apology, at the end of a very stormy Monday.

Reading this and several other threads in this forum today, I am regretting very much a post I made several nights ago which did mention the Council of Nicea and Constantine.

Agreeing with your comment that "Tone...is an important aspect of any discussion", I'll freely call myself out here regarding the tone of that post. On reflection I can see very easily that because of my tone there, I managed not only to misrepresent my own thoughts and feelings, but also to trivialize decades of personal struggle within issues of faith, doctrine, and observance; matters of faith in private and public life; and the resultant psychological, social, political, and legal quandaries, distortions, atrocities, and tragedies - historical and contemporary - arising out of all branches of monotheism (in particular, monotheism): these issues are of enduring concern to me.

Having failed to provide any personal context or reasoned qualification whatsoever for my remarks in the post to which I refer, I see that I gave full license to any reader to infer irreverence and insensitivity to sincere Christian belief across the full spectrum of that faith.

Poor choice of thread within which to say anything, apparently; cheap puns; and two additional replies in that thread - intended in spontaneous levity and *not* in any way directed toward anyone here at DU: but such levity never again to be repeated by this poster. I am fairly new to posting here (obviously) althrough I've been a reader on DU since last October. I had been avoiding posting tossed-off remarks on any topic. I'm returning firmly to that resolve.

And should I choose (in the not-near-future, be assured) to address any issue posted here touching on matters of religion, belief, faith - *any* religion, belief, faith - I intend to take utmost care that my tone properly and soberly reflects both respect for the sensibilities of others at DU, and an equal and considered self-respect in expressing my true thoughts, feelings, and questions on these matters.

In honesty (and I sense this may apply for many who post here and far many more who resist posting here): my thoughts are profoundly troubled; my feelings bruised and shaken to the core; and my questions - well, they're the very shoes I've walked in and pretty much worn out for 51 years now.

Whatever I am, I am not an atheist. But I make even that barest statement based on decades of direct personal quest, and not from anything that I have been taught. Beyond that barest statement (of what I must say I am *not* - elsewise I'd convict myself of the most dangerous kind of hypocrisy), I think after today it will be a very long time before I risk attempting to express anything here about "what" I am, or believe, or wonder; much less how that "what" came to be formed: even though what has formed me, in this regard, has everything to do with why I am still here (existing, I mean) at all, and intentionally (and committedly) here at DU - : attempting to participate, attempting to make common cause and to do so in best human good-will, attempting to at least begin to exercise my *responsibilities* as a citizen - even though apparently I have yet some tough lessons to learn about what constitutes an acceptable and/or effective "voice" through which to do a bare minimum of any of this.

The _very last_ thing I wish to do, here or anywhere, is to offend people of any faith; *or* by anything I write, to spur additional discord and ill-feeling.

Most of all I care very much *not* to deflect these forums from discussion of the myriad of utterly urgent issues which surely concern us all - regardless of what any one of us does or does not "believe".

Thanks, Will, for your post, and especially for this point regarding "tone" - lesson well-and-permanently taken to heart.

ana

[ultraist]

216. I hope you don't let this thread stop you from voicing your opinion

Demands for a "certain" tone and word usuage when discussing Christianity on a message board is no reason to stop speaking out.

I'm leary of calls for censorship to protect a majority who is currently a very oppressive force in our society.

[savannahana]

272. I won't let it do so, and thank you, ultraist, for your response

Short of violating the rules of our hosts on this site,

I agree, as you say:

'*Demands* (my emphasis)
for a certain "tone" and word usage
when discussing (my adopted emphasis implying a certain civility: *discussing*)
Christianity (or any topic: my view)
on a message board (this one, in particular)
is no reason to stop speaking out.'

So, no, I won't stop speaking out.
I'm just now, just barely, getting started.
And I thank you, ultraist, for the sole expression of encouragement I received here at DU *not* to become silenced.

But I happen to be a person who tends to take my own time about speaking out. So if the number of my posts at DU increases only very slowly, I'm not going to be on the defensive about it.

My remarks in #12 above were a voluntary self-correction of self-presentation and of "tone" based on my own personal standards of "voice" in any public forum. But other than having a few poems published over some 30 years in mostly-Southern regional journals, and giving a few poetry readings where I was invited to do so, I don't have any experience with or in "public forums". This is the first politically-focused board or list I have ever read extensively, much less joined (or even attempted to participate in).

The earlier of my few posts that I referred to (in #12, above) had failed that personal standard, so I decided that it was best just to say so in my 29th post at DU, rather than to play at whistling-on, posting & pretending to ignore the (opinionated adjectives suppressed) situation. Had the OP's remarks not specifically included a reference to Constantine, I might have decided that my single, early, clumsy comments had played no part in forming the OP's complaint. Since the remarks anchoring this thread did include that particular reference, I felt that (whatever the OP's true frame of reference, intent, or motivation - and whether or not he had even read my particular ill-expressed post mentioning the Council of Nicea and Constantine) I should respond as honestly as I could.

I'm about the most profoundly atypical (and life-long Democrat) native-born Southerner you could find; but being a Southerner, that core conditioning of looking to one's personal integrity (aka "honor"), and 'fessing up when confronted (even most peripherally) -- especially on an issue of MANNERS or "tone" -- well, that conditioning kicked in hard: but what some might have read as "appeasement" was NOT intended so, here. It's just a part of who I am, and how my reflexes work (we've all got 'em, true?). And when I wrote my apology was sincere, I meant just that, within the context of the OP's remarks and the context I set forth in my reply.

If I was feeling a bit reactive & defensive, too (as a very new poster here, who makes mistakes like any other newcomer within a given group) -- well, it seems three days' further reading on various DU forums, (including some in the Lounge where I hadn't ventured before), & through a number of pertinent threads here in GD, have taught me a lot about just what territory I've entered here.

Several layers of Newbie Naivete shed :dilemma: :hurts:

and personal balance sufficiently restored :shrug: :evilgrin:

so that I'm not too inclined after all to crawl back under my already-long-marginalized-person's rock
& just suffer :blush: :cry:

much less "shut up" - forfeit the voice I've struggled to claim for over 30 years... When I was a very young woman trapped in an abusive marriage to the son of ultra-fundamentalist, profoundly racist (I'm of mixed ancestry in just about every way you could define) and sexist Southern Baptist parents, I wrote these lines in my journal:

SILENCED

Afraid to hold a heartless pen
Afraid to taint a faultless page
Afraid to crowd such perfect lines
With my "romantic" scrawl --
On worlds too full of soundless signs
I spatter helpless ink, and rage
At ordered space and empty men --
I will not speak at all.

(ana, 1972)

I put this here in solidarity with *the many, many people* who may have felt the same, experienced the same, resolved the same, at some desperate "no-exit" point in their lives, & in sometimes truly unimaginable circumstances -- but who are NOW resolving otherwise.

We haven't survived for nothing. We've lived to witness to what we do know, for cause. FOR CAUSE, and to try, at the least, to do what each of us feels we must risk doing to help bring about a NEW EFFECT -- a RENEWED JUSTICE -- and, together with people stronger, more skilled, and far more politically-savvy (like many DUers) than we can ever hope to be, as we still exist now within our variously-stigmatized, socially-isolated hermitages, hovels, & survivors'-bolt-holes -- to COUNT, to BE COUNTED, to do our small but fully-invested personal best to ACT as responsible citizens under the terms of our nation's Constitution and in its defense; and maybe to experience the profound empowering effect of making some kind of contribution: of at last finding a way to give *something* back, ON PRINCIPLE & from deepest personal knowledge & conviction, to the same society which has tended to deem us...

useless
in the way
politically inconvenient
whacked-out
too strange
dangerous to the Party precisely because we *do* think for ourselves:

Life has taught us most directly that *not* to Question Everything (including the Democratic Party, its putative leadership (& I do *not* mean Howard Dean, just to be clear), and its latter-day APPEASERS & TRAITORS aka DINO'S & opportunistic demagogues, plus those who, of late, have proven themselves to be politically-spineless) can be swiftly lethal.

The Democratic Party and liberal, sane, progressive, humanistic, and Earth-cherishing movements everywhere NEED every one of US, these days. Many of you here are wondering more and more:

"Where is OUR base? Where are the people WHO OUGHT TO KNOW that WE are representing their best interests? Where are the disaffected silent majority (funny how terms flip around with the times) that we KNOW are reflected in the demographics as existing, but why can't we see their votes making LANDSLIDE victories for our liberal, just, humane principles in the midst of all this blatant insanity?"

We are right here.
We are NOT "Sheeple".
We have NOT "drunk the Koolaid".

AND MANY OF US ARE SOUTHERNERS, POLITICALLY, ECONOMICALLY, SOCIALLY, & SOMETIMES ETHNICALLY TRAPPED DOWN HERE IN THE "RED STATES" FEELING THE HEAT OF THE BLATANT INSANITY IN THE MOST PERSONAL AND DIRECT MANNER -- PERHAPS TRULY NOT-IMAGINABLE TO THOSE OF YOU FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE LIVING AND ATTEMPTING TO SPEAK AND VOTE AND ACT, ELSEWHERE. AND WE ARE FEELING UTTERLY UNREPRESENTED BY ANYONE IN WASHINGTON, DC, for the simple reason that so many of us ARE OFFICIALLY "represented" by some damned self-serving, dogma-soaked, vote-greedy, RNC-FUNDED REPUBLICAN.

(brief apology for yelling, but many of us feel we need TO EMIT A DESPERATELY-PERSISTENT & FOR-REAL "DEAN SCREAM" to be heard AT ALL down hear, BY OUR FELLOW DEMOCRATS)

(clears throat. & composes further paragraphs.)

In fact, many of us could tell some of you things you may not be ready to hear about all that has gone into the "brew" and the "dispensation" of that Koolaid. And, about what it has cost many of us who have refused, REFUSED, to drink it.

The Democratic Party is like a blind farmer who is standing at the center of CONTINENTAL MILES of acres of ripest Plenty: saying, "Why is my barn empty? Why will no one come to work in my threshing floor?"

IF, perhaps, the same rough parable applies for the "mainstream" "liberal" Christian churches who for three decades, at least, have been clucking in dismay over their shrinking numbers and diminishing socio-political influence ... then

"Let those who have ears to hear, hear"

and just open the eyes of your minds, individually and collectively: you are (wherever you are) literally surrounded by the very people you are looking for. We may or may not be folks you'd want to invite for dinner, or to your next county gathering of Democratic activists. Or to your church next Sunday.

But we are all around you, mostly SILENCED; and we are legion.


(sufficiently-civil, I do hope) :rant:


Again, ultraist, thank you for your post. Without finding it here today, I'm not sure I'd have written down these thoughts this evening.

ana, in Kentucky for a long time now

ps: "Nader" and "BIG PERSONALITIES", my crone-ripe long-detached native-born Savannah-River-demagogy-pedagogy-wise ASS. }( :rofl:

[mcscajun]

51. Just one point...

...not everyone who has the attitude you describe towards religion in general is a Marxist.

:)

[papau]

53. Is it insulting for them to make their assertions? - as phrased - yes

"cult"??? - as you would refer to those pushing string theory as a "cult"

"death cult" - as if you define a group that celebrates life by the fact they are compassionate for the dying by focusing only on the last item and therefore calling them a "death cult"

"critical analysis" - is not slogans/lies by those that can not define faith, have not studied religion, but just know they are "correct" and are helping the world see the error of its ways by making a few insulting posts on DU

[havocmom]

13. While not professing to be a Christian, yet as one who tries to follow

teachings of its inspriation, I agree.

There is a tendency, by too many here of late, to resort to the same sort of knee-jerk bigotry we loath the neocon propaganda machine instilling into national psyche. It does not become us nor does it serve the advancement of Progressive ideals. It certainly does nothing to improve the chances of any productive civil dialog aimed at solving the problems of this nation.

[seabeyond]

where i have issue with the sensitive christian

we have the faith. we should not feel a need to defend or be insulted with what is said about christianity. i mean that is just how i feel. but, with my children and my experience with fundamentalist, i tell friends, we are having a crisis of religion. not a crisis of faith

they want me to ignore it, becasue they want to ignore it.

i feel with ignoring is allowing the small group of voices to be represented as christianity. and that is not a chrsitianity i want to be

i think it is important that we christian look at who we are. what we are giving to this world. how much are we contributing to this alienation in this country. i know many that say u.s. is a christian nation, and it isnt. it is also an athiest nation. until the christian can feel in their hearts, that this country belongs to the athiest as much as a chrsitian, then i do hold the christians the one responsible.

no. i will not keep mouth shut about christianity, not now, to important to speak up. and i think i am doing the christian thing. i dont need to see christianity in a lie to love it, i can love all that it is, even the ugliness. but i think we can be better.

and if somebody who doesnt believe, tears at christianity, i dont take it personally. i doesnt hurt my feelings. that is theirs to experience, not mine

[papau]

57. ALLOWING INSULTS INVITES THE NEXT STEP - it is not "sensistive"

to tell someone that they are out of line, and if they want you to hear them, to change the tone,

But ignore is the only answer to those that post to hear themselves and do not give a damn about civility or being heard by others.

[Dhalgren]

15. I believe that a lot of the "insulting" "critiques" have been

generated by individuals' fear of and disgust with the RW fundamentalist movement that is currently trying to take over the country and would love to establish a theocracy here. We have whole school systems in this country that insist upon teaching creationism as if it were as valid as real science. We are in a constant, running battle with wild-eyed fundamentalist Christian-Talibanists who are intent upon establishing Biblical Law in this country; and we have a government controlled by politicians who at least give lip service to these...people and their ideas. There may be a lot of "broad brushing" going on, but I don't think that it is essentially malicious. It is, rather, reactionary. Just as there are a large number of Christians who condemn all non-Christians to hell, so there are those who will denigrate and lampoon Christian beliefs - and I think that these two groups are, by percentage, roughly equal. I think that Christianity deserves exactly the same amount of respect as does any other religion (or lack thereof), and no more (and no less). Just my two cents (well, maybe 6 or 7 cents).

[RaleighNCDUer]

66. Hell, Dhalgren, I'd give you 10 cents, for that.

I quite agree.

While I never thought of myself as a 'seeker', I have traveled from childish belief, through agnosticism, into Christianity, then Judaism, and on back to atheism. And in that 40 year journey I never felt threatened by any religion (except Scientology, but that's another story) until the past few years.

I left them alone, and they left me alone.

But with the politicization of fundamentalist Christianity and the laws being passed coming from that perspective, they are no longer leaving me alone. I can't ignore them. Sometimes, in response, I futilely flail back at them and in doing so I unintentionally strike innocent bystanders. For that I apologize.

But for the dominionist/fundamentalist power block that is trying to undermine our secular democracy I have nothing but loathing. And I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[jdots]

105. I feel the same way

What I read here is about frustration and typing can show a just a segment of a feeling unless your medium is writing.The anti Christian posts look to me like they are written by people who are bothered by the way a religion has been used and abused.

[eallen]

16. Fair's fair. Judaism is a bronze-age myth with a laughable god.

If I recall correctly, the Jewish god orders his people to commit genocide on other tribes occupying the land he promises to his people, sends bears to eat boys who laugh at his prophets, orders death for blasphemers, and prescribes trial by ordeal using an abortifacient for the wives of jealous husbands, and otherwise shows himself as a vicious, jealous, whimsical god whose law is full of caprice and cruelty.

Feel less picked upon?

I'll take on Islam, Ba'hai, Scientology, Mormonism, and some others, if you want me to.

:hippie:

[Bok_Tukalo]

20. Do Ba'hai next

<eom>

[eallen]

26. Ba'hai believes that the world is ready for social unification...

And the religion itself has split into two major sects, Ba'hai and Orthodox Ba'hai, and a variety of splinter sects.

Really, what else is there to say?

:evilgrin:

[markbark]

89. An Old Testament God is kinda like a computer....

Lots of rules and NO MERCY!

... or is that the other way around?

:evilgrin:

--MAB

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[WilliamPitt]

21. Thank you for proving my point

[Tux]

23. Thanks for the proof

Just read the Bible and it's all there.

[rman]

266. I can't help but thinking there aren't many posts that prove your point

"...lumping Christians on DU in with the crazies outside the Schiavo hospise..."

Who exactly are doing that? It's hard to argue "DU" is doing that, and i'd think it isn't fair to hold DU responsible for anyone who does do that. You don't seem to be pointing out anyone who's supposedly guilty of it, but you do seem to be suggesting DU somehow has something to do with it.
It's not very prevelant is it? I come across more posts complaining about bashing of Christians than i come across posts that are bashing Christians.

[yvr girl]

40. Pray for the death of non-Christians?

I've gone to church since I was 5. I have never once prayed for the death of anyone. I've never heard such a prayer.

Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is really a follower of Christ.

[name not needed]

55. Does this mean I have to pray for you to die now?

:eyes:

[American in Asia]

56. wow....

You know, as a Christian who has pretty much walked away from organized religion because of a lot of the criticisms being leveled here, I was really internally divided on how to respond. I abhor a lot of what goes on in the name of "Christianity", though I should note I don't find it Christian or Christ-like in the least. There is a part of me that definitely says that many comments are fair, and that mainstream, more liberal Christian groups need to do more to challenge the moral high ground of the fundamentalists. Yet I still feel defensive when I read posts like this one - and I think it's not the criticisms, it's the tone - it's the superior, mocking, hate-filled (at times) spirit behind the posts, that feels like a personal attack on many of us within the DU community.

Why does it bother me if I don't go to church? I dunno - maybe just that I feel sad that the religious beliefs I was taught as a child, and that shaped me into a liberal humanist, working in a poor country, are being spit upon as evil, and I'm not willing to concede that, despite the criticisms. If I lived in the US I would try attending a UCC or Quaker service, because part of me very much wants to reconcile my religious beliefs with my socio-political values. And, no, I don't think the comments that are being hurled at Christians would apply very well to the Quakers, for instance.

But leaving fairness or offense to your fellow DU'ers aside, do you think it's really all that electorally helpful to make our party out to be the anti-Christian, foaming at the mouth with hatred for them, party? I don't - not when my sense is there are many, many liberal democrats who are Christians.

[Midnight Rambler]

18. As an atheist myself...

I do think that some of the critiques of Christianity go over the line. I haven't followed a religion in years, yet I still revere Jesus one of history's great moral philosophers. What I personally take issue with is the faith that has sprung up in his name. Now, I have no problems with belief itself as it pretains to others, and I always try to honor and respect their beliefs, regardless of how much I disagree or how silly I may personally think them to be (and this isn't limited to Christianity). But once people start proselytizing (sp?), then that's where I get upset. Fortunately, that doesn't happen much here at DU. That said, I think that the fundies are pretty much fair game, and I never lump all Christians in there with them.

[maxsolomon]

19. not that surprising

given that atheists (& non-christians, for that matter) have to put up with the "christian" hypocrisy & ignorance of our secular, liberal constitution that is shoved down our american throats ever day of the week.

here's the thing: i never read insults of jesus' words & philosophy. any issue atheists have always has to do with the religion, it organizations, its influence in the history of our culture, its assertion of jesus' literal divinity, and first & foremost, the behavior of its more zealous adherents.'

but who says The Beatitudes are bad? no one.

[ashmanonar]

31. now this is very interesting

and very correct.

i've NEVER seen a thread bashing jesus of nazareth, but i have seen threads speaking ill of the people who murder and thieve and lie and oppress in his name. i hold no brief for such "christians", but i will speak with real christians who study the life and wisdom of jesus, not his death and all that pertains to it. there's much to learn from the man, as he was (if he was truly real and not an invention of history) a great moral philosopher.

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. True.

But don't get me started on Paul.

[Dhalgren]

97. Uhg, Paul...

Yeah, delving into the twisted psyche of Paul is a whole nother thread...

[ashmanonar]

98. lol

agreed.

[BuyingThyme]

25. Religion is an escape from critical analysis.

You may consider this an insult, but many consider it a reality.

[Terran]

42. If true, so what?

I don't see your statement as being relevant to the discussion. You don't see religion as involving critical analysis, so that excuses a lack of critical thinking by *everyone* who might discuss religion here?

I believe the point is that we, here, who like to think of ourselves as a group of people with minds superior to those of the fans of George Bush, need to judge people based on their words and actions, and not on their personal philosophies. The presence or absence of religious faith is a personal matter, and no one should be judged on that simplistic basis. Rise above that.

[BuyingThyme]

50. Many people cannot be separated from religion.

If somebody, based on his religion, wants to decide who can and cannot have abortions, the concept of critical analysis has already been thrown out the window.

It's impossible to respond to such a position without examining the religion on which it's based.

You can't have it both ways.

[Terran]

81. You make my case for me

If somebody, based on his religion, wants to decide who can and cannot have abortions...

Your example proves my point--you cite an action, not a belief. Be careful to distinguish the two. You can respond to such a person on many different levels, all of which involve critical thinking about what it is they want to do. But it isn't rational to merely criticize someone for having religious beliefs in the first place; no more than it is rational for them to criticize you for a lack of religious faith. It's a personal choice, there is no right or wrong about it, it just *is*. Only what you do with it is right or wrong.

[Dhalgren]

102. Well, I for one, would have no problem discussing

religion and belief systems with a Christian who viewed faith and religious belief in terms of "there is no right or wrong about it". It is just that most Christians that I have come into contact with believe that there is very much a "right" and a "wrong" to it. "None cometh unto the Father except by me." - is no longer mainstream Christian belief? Is "One Way" not the norm in mainstream Christianity? That's really interesting, because I really thought it still pertained.

[BuyingThyme]

144. Your case was that people

"need to judge people based on their words and actions, and not on their personal philosophies."

But if people explicitly base their words and actions in religion (as above), then they're actions and their religion are the same thing. Thus any judgment on said action or religion is, by that person's definition, a judgment on the corresponding religion or action..

You are making the case that religion should get a pass. You're making a case that intelligent people should not respond to the religious aspects of the argument. I think not. Absolutely not. Never.

[BuyingThyme]

250. You're the one judging.

Typical.

[MaraJade]

235. I think that Atheism is. . .

[THUNDER HANDS]

28. I was watching a show on MTV last night

Where a 5-year old girl and a muppet beat God in a rock-paper-scissors contest for the fate of the earth.

God lost. Then God shot himself in the head.

Then the muppet and the little girl ATE god.

And this was shown on Easter.

There are a lot more offensive things out there than the rambling incoherencies of anonymous mammals dweling in computer rooms typing on germ-infested keyboards, munching on cheese-its and drinking warm grape soda.

BTW, that show I watched was awesome. I can't remember the name of it though. It came on at 11:30 p.m.

[Batgirl]

38. thanks for the beyond-obscene mischaracterization

"There are a lot more offensive things out there than the rambling incoherencies of anonymous mammals dweling in computer rooms typing on germ-infested keyboards, munching on cheese-its and drinking warm grape soda."

It's actually warm diet red bull

[THUNDER HANDS]

41. they make a diet version of red bull?

:scared:

[Batgirl]

46. yep, the better to wash down more cheese-its! n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

65. Grape soda?

Ewwww....

[Tweed]

176. What the hell show was that?!

SOunds like pure crap

[yvr girl]

29. I don't venture into many of 'those' threads

I don't like being insulted and I find them upsetting. It drives me crazy when this community, which is supposed to be progressive is so judgmental. I agree with you, it seems to be OK to be hateful to Christians. Not in my book. We should be able to disagree with someone and not hate them, or mock them.

Have many wrongs been done under the banner of Christianity. Sure. Lots. That drives me crazy too. You can dig through history or watch the news to find your examples. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one. Even people who are Christians are a work in progress.

If someone is a hypocrite, I believe that they open themselves up to attack. That's fair. What you say, and what you do should match.

It's not fair to vilify a whole group of people because of the actions of a few. I don't hate all Americans because your political leaders are not my cup of tea.

Jesus is a liberal.

[1monster]

32. I tend to stay away from religion threads, but I do have something to say

here.

If all Christian were like one I've known from another board for six years now, I doubt that there would be very much Christian bashing at all. He is very devout, and stands up for his beliefs, but never belittles other belief systems and/or religions. He is a good decent man who walks the walk he talks AND has a great sense of humor and is able to laugh at himself. If all Christians tended to be like him, I never would have questioned Christianity.

However, many of the most prominent "Christians" of today are serious hypocrites who, rather than spread the "culture of life" spread the miasma of hate. These people bash and encourage violence against almost everyone but themselves. They bring out the basest of emotions and actions from those who fall under their beastly spells. They are intensely scary.

In Matthew there is a verse or two regarding knowing the soundness of a tree by the fruit that it bears. Christianity is bearing some very bitter and rotten fruit these days. The fruits are bigotry, hatred, ethnocentricism, ultra-nationalism, imperialism (religious as well as the normal kind), greed, etc. The list is very long.

I realize that all Christians do not belong to those particular trees. But they have infiltrated and taken over your orchard. They do not follow the teachings of Jesus. As was suggested in an editorial posted here last week, they should be called Leviticans as followers of the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament.

Those of you who do follow the teachings of Jesus, and not these Pretenders to Christianity, should chop them out of your orchard and take back your religion from them. Because, until you do, you will be tarred with the brush they choose for you.

[papau]

61. tarred with the brush " only if we are silent is true - I agree we must

respond to insults from either direction - and that such response is not being overly sensistive.

Indeed not responding is not proof of faith or an expression on calm in your religion, or non-religion - it is expressing to others your belief that you do not deserve respect.

[Jack Rabbit]

33. The litmus test

Sometimes, I get the impression that some posters here think one has to be an atheist in order to be a true liberal. And we wonder why we lose elections in red states!

I am not a Christian, Will, but I, too, find much of the "critique" of religion here offensive. On a broader level, it is counterproductive.

I am convinced that the Democratic Party can make inroads into the GOP's fundamentalist base by appealing to economic issues. Many of the same people who some disparage as religious crazies are poor debtors who have been hurt by passage of the bankruptcy bill, pensioners who will be hurt by Social Security privatization or WalMart employees who would benefit from better and stronger labor laws.

In the Schiavo case, the Republicans have failed to impose the will of the Christian right on America. They promised the faith-based community that they would, and have been unwilling or unable to follow through. Democrats will not promise these people anything in terms promoting religious values; our position is that not the business of the state to save souls. However, we can promise them government policies that will result in more prosperity for America's lower, lower-middle and middle class, an economic bracket in which many Christian fundamentalists fall.

The Schiavo affair may be the high water point of the Christian right. The Democrats have an opportunity to make an appeal to the rural poor, many of whom are Christian fundamentalists who have been voting Republican for years. If we continue to alienate Christian fundamentalists who may be open to that appeal by being rude and condescending, we will let this opportunity slip.

[RaleighNCDUer]

76. "The Schiavo affair may be the high water point"

I fear, instead, that it is the wave hitting the shallows. It slows the wave down, momentarily, but forces it to build up higher and higher, and then the tsunami washes over the land.

The shootings of doctors and bombings of clinics has virtually ceased over the past few years because these people thought they were getting their way. Now that they have been frustrated, watch out for more, and worse violence -- not only against women's clinics and their staff, but against judges who follow the law rather than the RW line; against professors who teach the wrong things in their classes; against politicians who dare stand for the constitution.

I truly hope I am only being alarmist.

[Jack Rabbit]

92. You may see more violence, but it will be underground

However, we will not see any leading politician playing demagogue to the rabble like we've seen in the last couple of weeks. The Schiavo affair has shown that more Americans of all persuasions, political and religious, respect the rule of law and the sanctity of private individuals to make these kinds of decisions without government interference.

Instead of seeing a Governor egg on what could have become a dangerous confrontation, expect to see laws enforced.

[MadHound]

34. I think that the Christians who are oh so offended,

Are being a tad bit over the top in their offense.

First off, I think that the vast majority of people on these boards are respectful of ALL religions, including Christianity. In fact I would be willing to bet that the majority of people on these boards ARE Christians.

I think where the confusion and offensiveness come in is where there are discussions involving religion and its influence in politics. A big issue these days, since RW fundementalism is having such a dramatic, and disastorous effect on our country. I've seen post after post slamming RW fundementalism in this regard, but it is understood that this is not a slam at the religion as a whole. It is either specifically pointed out that the slam is directed at RW fundies, or it is implied.

I also think that there are lots of slams at Christianity by Christians themselves, laughing at the foibles and follies of their religious experiences.

And in the few cases where non-Christians are slamming Christianity, well, I think again it is directed largely towards RW fundies. I also think that you have to understand where the non-Christian is coming from. They have suffered a life of being labled Godless, pagan, heathen, etc. etc. They have also experienced not only insults and outright discrimination. Are they pissed and bitter? Damn straight they are, and places like here to allow a venting space, a place where they can release their pent up anger and frustration.

All in all, I think that this perception that you share with a few others here is nothing more than a tempest in a tea cup. Perhaps you need to step back, ignore such threads for awhile, and then come back and see if you're still so offended. Besides, I think that all this hoopla will die off once this Schiavo mess is finished. Then hopefully we can get back to real business, like what is going on in the Jackson trial:eyes:

[morgan2]

35. You can't have an honest discussion

of religion without offending someone. When people have such deep seeded beliefs they don't take to kindly to opposing positions.

Its kind of hard to argue religion is a made up story, without calling it a fairy tale.

[stellanoir]

36. a little more tolerance

would certainly be refreshing for sure.

Another fun fact to know and tell about Constantine. . .he switched the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday because he was born on a Sunday, Always thought that was somewhat bizarre.

So when one worships on Sunday are they worshiping Christ or Constantine. . .?

I'm kidding 'cause I really don't think it matters when one prays or meditates. It matters more that they just do.

[BrklynLiberal]

52. He was also the one who destroyed the Gnostic Gospel books and

ended the role of women in the Church at the Nicaea Council in 325AD

[stellanoir]

90. yeah he was a real charmer.

I've an older friend who is a fairly astute theologian. Ahhhhh. . .she's also a bit of a drama queen. So the line between historical fact and her OTT interpretations are often totally obfuscated.

She used to do a routine where she pretended to be Constantine's mother who she insisted was a former cleaning lady who went to visit Jerusalem dropping hankerchiefs and declaring arbitrary spots to be holy spots. Have no idea how much of her routine was based on fact but her impersonation of Constantine's mom was absolutely riotous.

[knitter4democracy]

220. Funny.

:eyes:

[knitter4democracy]

219. Not true.

We had women deaconesses until the middle of the thirteen hundreds. Don't blame everything on St. Constantine, when the Holy Fathers were dealing with the Gnostic controversy long before then.

[RevCheesehead]

239. To my knowledge, Constantine did not attend the Council of Nicea.

He was not a bishop, and he would have no standing.

The canonization of Scripture was always in debate, and it took many, many years before any canon was officially recognized. However, it is true that Gnosticism was the topic du jour. Give thanks to St. Athanasius for that. (Gnostics argued that Jesus was the divine Son of God - and they doubted whether or not he was truly HUMAN.) It is from that debate that the Nicene Creed was formed - a debate on the full divinity AND full humanity of Jesus.

The role of women was subdued, but again - I do not blame Constantine for that. I blame the institutionalization of the Church for that.
Once Christians were no longer persecuted, they could go about the business of organizing the church, formulating its theology, and arguing about who got to be in charge. (the men won)

[knitter4democracy]

218. Not true.

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I get a little tired of the "research" that people do on the early Church and then present as fact. There's a lot we don't know, but there's also a lot we do know. Our church still has the records of what happened at the councils and what happened before them.

I really try not to get offended at what gets posted here, but when people make fun and belittle our saints--many (but not all) not even reading the canons and writing of the Holy Fathers to make sure that they're right--I get testy. Oh, let's not make fun of Martin Luther or any of the Protestants, but hey, the saints are fair game?

You may call it fairy tale, but the faith has worked for me and gotten me through a lot of crap. Don't forget that there are Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians here, too, and we take St. Constantine seriously.

[RevCheesehead]

238. Sorry, that's not correct.

Christian worship practices were established almost immediately after the crucifixion/resurrection. Early Christians were Jews, who observed the Sabbath AS JEWS, and who gathered with faithful believers, in secret, on Sunday, the day of resurrection. They shared a common meal together. Christian worship on Sunday predated Constantine by at least 150 years.

Constantine may be credited with ending the persecution of Christians by the government, and giving it protection.

BTW - even though Constantine claimed the Christian faith, he refused to be baptized until his deathbed. (that supposedly was because many feared what might happen if they sinned after they were baptized - would they still be able to get into heaven?). Some might call that hypocritical, too...but I guess it all depends on how you want to see it.

[knitter4democracy]

247. There was also a longer period for the catecumins then.

It was a year of attending church and study before one could be baptised (most of the time). Some took longer than that. St. Constantine's choice was not unusual.

Thank you for posting that on the early Church. Of course, I thought of it after I went to bed. ;) There are a lot of myths out there that didn't gain any real foothold until the Reformation and later. It's a neat trick: the early Church was genuine, but then St. Constantine ruined it (or someone right after him, I've heard a couple different names), and there were a thousand years of the Church being lost and needing to be "reformed." I've actually had pastors and theologians tell me that as a way to bolster their church's claims to legitimacy. My only real problem with that is that they don't even acknowledge that there was another half to the Church then, another Church trying to stay true to the Faith. They never know what to do with us. :eyes:

[RevCheesehead]

251. I studied with one of the best Liturgics professors in the country,

and one of Christianity's leading theologians. They taught me well.

Actually, if one wants to get technical about church history, it would be more accurate to state that it was the Western Church which split away from the Eastern. If one wants to find a "more pure faith," one need not look any further than the Orthodox Church. Their liturgy is the one which most closely follows the early church's worship practices.

My theology prof. is involved in ecumenical dialogues with the Eastern Church. The name of the game is "know and respect the historical traditions, teachings, and experiences of the Church, in addition to its Scripture."

[knitter4democracy]

263. That's one of the reasons we converted to Orthodoxy.

We'd been feeling like our services in the Nazarene, evangelical tradition were less than, well, less than real. We were also troubled by a church basically ignoring Communion as an issue--so scared of agreeing with the Catholic Church and yet so undecided on why it's important. :shrug:

We found the Eastern Orthodox Church, and while it definitely has its faults, it's the best one for us. Our spiritual father after we moved here to Michigan is finishing up his doctorate in Liturgics, and he's just wonderful to listen to. He's got a couple Master's degrees in Liturgics and Church History, and he's just fascinating!

Btw, our church is always looking for new priests--and we let you be married. ;)

[RevCheesehead]

265. Sure - but would they accept my "plumbing?"

I'm OK with the UMethodists. We have our serious problems, but at least they allow for diversity (unless, of course someone is gay: but we're working on that!!).

Things got better for me once I returned to WI. While I loved Duke (while I was at the Div. School), and the progressive feel of Chapel Hill, the more rural areas of NC were not so welcoming for "women preachers." I also have found that people here are far more accepting of liturgical practices of the ancient church, so we do "Word and Table" once a month, and "Service of the Word" the rest of the time.

I say, put the sermon in the middle of the service. You have to allow for people to respond (true worship is, after all, a dialogue between priest and congregation, which is addressed to God).

[knitter4democracy]

269. Well, we're working on that--slowly, of course. ;)

God forbid our church ever do anything quickly. There's a movement to get deaconesses back (we've only been without them for six hundred years or so, so it's not like we can't do it), but everyone disagrees on exactly what the duties would be.

It's really hard for women preachers everywhere, from what I've seen. The Church of the Nazarene was one of the first to even have women in the pulpit, but boy, do they still make it hard on them. :eyes: My mentor prof from college is now in the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and that seems to be a good place for her. I've also heard that the Episcopalians are easier about it, too, but I don't know if that's really the case.

Bless you for answering God's call every day. Bless you for working so hard for His people and helping all of us with our Walk. Bless you for keeping at it in these times. Blessings.

[RevCheesehead]

270. What a lovely reply!

Thank you as well, knitter. Please feel free to visit the Liberal Christians group anytime. I'd love to discuss Orthodox theology with you!

[knitter4democracy]

271. Thanks! I need to hit that group.

When my pain level lightens up a bit, I'll be able to sit around more and chat. :( I have a thing . . .

Btw, any advice on how to handle the evangelicals that just moved in across the street? They asked me what church we went to (trying to find one), and I told them but not in a way to encourage it. After seeing what books were on the shelves, I decided not to push it. They're also * fans. :eyes:

[Goathead]

37. You will find an answer if you examine the people who do the bashing

I think you will find that the majority of the people who are doing the bashing are indeed X-Christians. I count myself as one of those. Being an X-Christian, gives me the right to criticize that institution. I am only speaking for myself however, my Christian experience was one that left me feeling as if I was in some sort of cult that used a fear of hell and eternal damnation as a means of control and subjugation. As I grew older I realized that the Christian church was simply using Christianity as a tool to obtain political objectives. I feel that my life has been scared by my Christian upbringing and therefore when I see other Christians vehemently espousing their faith it turns my stomach. I believe that Christ was a good man and that modern Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with Christ and his doctrine of love, acceptance and understanding whatsoever. When I see people twisting his doctrine and using it to there own end it makes me ill and when I see people blindly following the modern church with out question it has the same affect.

[Telly Savalas]

91. I'm guessing you're right with your assessment that...

many bashers are ex-Xtians. However, what most of these bashes/critiques fail to consider is that there is not a monolithic "The Church". There are numerous churches, many of which are pretty fucked up, but others which are at the vanguard of fighting for social justice. Just because your experience with a church was bad doesn't grant you or anyone else the right to make sweeping overgeneralizations that indict all churches.

In particular it seems that a high percentage of DU Christians are Unitarians. I'm completely baffled as to how any of the most common criticisms of Christianity you see here could be applied to the Unitarian Universalist Church. As far as I know there is no dogma to which one is supposed to adhere in order to become a member. I fail to see how it is a tool for social control or how it manipulates its members to promote a malicious political agenda. From what I've heard it's just a bunch of folks with spiritual concerns who like to get together every Sunday. They aren't hurting you or knocking on your door trying to foist literature on you, so I'm perplexed as to why anybody would want to direct hostility towards them.

[Goathead]

225. Unitarians are very powerful in this country

Harvard University School of Divinity is considered Unitarian.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Was going into the church and kicking over tables "critical analysis"?

Was calling the priests of the established religion, "hypocrites all", critical analysis? He said, "all". He didn't pick and choose.

Seems like a lot of folks found that guys behaviour insulting and provocative.

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.." Was mighty insulting to a lot of people, and still is. As evidenced convincingly by the hurricane of debate over the "starvation" of one dying woman and the incredible disdain for the suffering caused by the real starvation of millions of a different complection.

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." - Thomas Jefferson, from "Notes on Virginia"

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787

"fools", "hypocrites" "roguery", "servile prejudice", sounds pretty insulting to me.

[BrklynLiberal]

47. When Jim Wallis and tom delay can both be called Christians, you have to

know that the word encompasses a broad spectrum of men.Therefore one cannot make any generalization that would cover every person that considers themself a Christian. I would guess that applies to every religion, agnostics, atheists,deists and whatever other group may exist out there.

[jonnyblitz]

48. how does one have a critical analysis of a belief system

where the adherents of that belief system don't require proof , where the rules of debate and logic don't apply because faith is all that is required?

from dictionary.com:

faith. n

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

[Bouncy Ball]

49. Like I heard someone say on DU many moons ago

"left ugly ain't no prettier than right ugly."

Both sides have some ugly, though I'd vehemently argue that the right's percentage of ugliness is approaching 100% and ours is down in the single digits (another reason I love being on the left).

Still. Alert, ignore, and hide thread.

Civility is important on all sides (on DU--I'm not speaking for other websites).

[Kathy in Cambridge]

245. You're right-ignore, alert, hide thread

there are discussions on DU that offend me sometimes. I move on, unless it's an egregious violation of the rules. Then I hit alert.

[Junkdrawer]

54. It's almost impossible to find the videos, but John Romer's "Testament"...

had an excellent episode on how Constantine changed Christianity into the world-ruling religion of the Dark and Middle ages.

For example, it was Constantine who created the whole Bishop/Diocese system. When Rome fell, the highly organized church was the only "government" left standing in Europe.

[papau]

75. Romer is indeed a good discussion starter

Testament. Antelope Films/Channel 4: London, 1988. 7 programs.
As It Was in the Beginning
Chronicles and Kings
Mightier than the Sword
Gospel Truth?
Thine Is the Kingdom
The Power and the Glory
Paradise Lost

(shown on PBS)

and the book :Testament: The Bible and History
by John Romer

are good views/reads - but are really just Romer saying do not use the Bible to prove ancient history, as he uses ancient history to argue the Bible unprovable. Sounds like a lot of fascinating BS - and it is!

Thank Goodness that Romer is willing to concede that the Bible's portrait of its world is in keeping with what is known from nonbiblical sources.

Indeed the Bullshit posts at DU of the last few days seems to have resulted from someone viewing Romers series - as Romer sells the idea that Christiany is just an amalgams of bits and pieces of the religions and cultures along the way to now.

He can not accept that while some influence is certain, he is overstating the case - totally unbalanced with subjective "opinions"- or bias if you like. But he is good for discussion as the issues he raises and the points of view from which he approaches events, artworks, and ideas of the past will make you think, ask questions, and seek more information from outside sources.

[Junkdrawer]

87. My impression of Romer was that he had a great reverence for the Bible...

as a document that details the writer's passionate views of what is sacred and that a lot of "Biblical Archeology" cheapens that message by trying to take the Bible too literally e.g. fundamentalism.

[papau]

95. indeed that is what he says! - but actions suggest a different view of

"reverence" than my own -

and I am not a "fundie"

Guess it depends on how you define "too literally "

:-)

[jpgray]

58. But it's okay to throw insults at those who, say, post Schiavo threads

Just because someone's belief system is a majority in this country doesn't mean it gets special treatment. Is calling Republicans "repukes" or "rethugs" critical analysis? How about calling pro-gun people "gun nuts" or the Public Safety / Justice forum the "Gungeon"? No, these are not examples of intelligent criticism, but you have to take the low-brow lambasting with the high-brow because usually the two occur right next to each other--once you start making subjective rules for what is and what is not criticism concerning one particular belief system I think you undermine the very basis of a discussion board. Especially when the only reason it is brought up at all is because the belief system in question is dominant in our culture and therefore more people will bitch.

It's not the "torrent of insults" people are upset about, it's about what the torrent of insults is directed at. The way you can tell this is that those who are whining on this thread are not at all above throwing the same torrent at other belief systems.

[jonnyblitz]

73. the insulted christians are just as insulted (if not more so)

when you use critical analysis as you do low brow insults ,trust me, been there. :eyes:

[papau]

78. not always :-)

:-)

[jonnyblitz]

84. not my experience

the critical analysis is usually a one way street. it's not required from the people of "faith" since proving anything is not required of them to present their case (in their view). rules of logic do not apply. nobody gets anywhere in the discussion.

[papau]

103. seems fair - since by the rules of logic faith is a given and therefore

can not be showned to be wrong by "logic"

[jonnyblitz]

109. it has to end up as one of those "agree to disagree" things.

the way my mind works I can't accept religion because of my view of "faith".

[papau]

132. no problem ! :-)

hugs and a toast!

:toast:

:-)

[steve2470]

63. I understand what you mean, Will.

I think one's religion (or spirituality) is usually a pretty sensitive topic for most people, just as race and gender are. With that in mind, I try very hard not to joke or type very insensitive things about spirituality or religion. We are all entitled to our beliefs. I am a liberal Christian, and I don't mind jabs at extremist behavior and ideology on the fringes that defies any logic. However, criticizing a central tenet of a religion/spirituality (such as the Resurrection) is off bounds, as far as I am concerned. I take pains not to type anything offensive to atheists, pagans, agnostics, etc., because their faith is equally important to them. Let's face a simple fact: all religions and spiritualities, to some extent, are all non-fact based belief systems.

edit: deleted superfluous comment.

[Merope215]

72. I feel just the same

Making fun of the central part of any religion is, to me, just rude. It doesn't make people who do it right or wrong, it just makes them assholes. It's not really a matter of rationality or faith or whatever. Common decency demands that everyone have some respect.

That said, I also know that Christians are in the majority in this country and that the fundies, who claim to speak for both God and every other Christian in the country, put lots of people on the defensive. So when people who have historically been persecuted by the church get suspicious, I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. Respect is a two-way street, but when one side is a superhighway and the other is a dirt road, that needs to be taken into consideration, IMO. :)

[papau]

79. ditto :-)

:-)

[leftofthedial]

64. Is the following thesis insulting?

Tolerance of moderate religion in our culture creates the environment from which religious extremism and fundamentalism cyclically explodes like mold from a Petri dish.

[papau]

82. Eating bannanas makes you monkey like? discuss - not all that

logical - but lets hear whatever is behind the assertion (that Tolerance can not be tolerated)

[leftofthedial]

88. you're avoiding discussion of the thesis

and making two assumptions:

1. that the thesis is true
2. that the remedy is to not tolerate tolerance

what about the notion that moderate religion breeds fundamentalism?

[papau]

100. ok - define breed and show how how moderate religion breeds

anything as a world view or frame. Define faith and show that it is not independent to other influences. Show how the question as worded does not suggest no tolerance for moderate religion is best, assuming one wants to avoid fundamentalism



:-)

[leftofthedial]

209. Were the Inquisitions executed by secular or by religious institutions?

Are the Schiavo-protesting wack jobs and clinic bombers secularly motivated or religiously motivated?

Were the Crusades justified on secular grounds or religious grounds?

Why was much of the New World settled under a conversion-or-genocide policy for the native population?

Are the repeated attacks on rationalism and scientific fact in our educational system perpetrated by religious people or secular people?

Did these extreme examples of religious fundamentalism run amok arise from the religious communities of their times or not?

[papau]

101. ok - define breed and show how how moderate religion breeds

anything as a world view or frame. Define faith and show that it is not independent to other influences. Show how the question as worded does not suggest no tolerance for moderate religion is best, assuming one wants to avoid fundamentalism



:-)

[Telly Savalas]

94. Not insulting.

Lacking in credibility perhaps, but not insulting.

[leftofthedial]

99. how is i lacking in credibility?

[Telly Savalas]

252. It's an assertion with no backing argument.

[mvd]

104. You could say that..

tolerance of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens enables criminals to use guns for crime. We should tolerate those who moderate and marginalize those who don't. What good would come from the world if we worried about everything that might spring from what is ok in itself?

[leftofthedial]

203. It is historical permissiveness about guns in this country

that has made gun control far too little far too late

If tomorrow some technological advance rendered guns ineffective and replaced them with something far more lethal, would you advocate similar permissiveness applied to that new technology, thus starting the same cycle of destructiveness and death?

I think my thesis is accurate. Religion has historically spawned cycles of increasingly destructive waves of fundamentalism. The Inquisitions did not pring from the secular world. The Crusades weren't justified on secular grounds.

[Telly Savalas]

253. And secularism has spawned destructiveness too.

Ala Pol Pot.

What's your fucking point?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

121. Maybe not insulting, but definitely autocratic

So you'd enforce compulsory atheism, as Albania did under Enver Hoxha?

Or would you simply forbid all public evidence of religion, in the same way that Saudi Arabia forbids all public evidence of non-Wahhabi Muslim religions?

[leftofthedial]

205. again, you're jumping to a supposed "solution"

when we haven't even discussed the question of whether or not there is a problem.

The thesis (the topic to argue about) is that religion spawns fundamentalism. True or false?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

226. To about the same extent that sports

spawn soccer hooligans and drunken riots. :shrug:

[mmonk]

70. where politics and religion entertwine

there will always be someone who is offended especially when politicians use it for emotional appeal to get what they want legislatively or through political appointment.

[DeepModem Mom]

77. Thanks, Will. The double standard that seems evident...

between criticism of Christianity, and little or none of other religions, is your point I find most compelling. That said, I am making an effort to become active, after a long absence, in a Protestant denomination, hoping to bring, as much as one person is able, the Church back to what many consider its origins -- back to love and acceptance, back to social conscience, back to sanity.

[Malva Zebrina]

80. Flame bait

and continuing a discussion from another thread.

[Warren Stupidity]

204. so is will's style

to start these snarky threads, post a reply or two, and then disappear?

Generally I like what he has to say, and think he puts a lot of thought into his post's, but lately its sort of 'drive-by will pitt'.

[earth mom]

93. Everyone here on DU should work to keep Religion & Politics separate...

Since we ALL know that they don't mix!

Look at how we are all bombarded with the Christian message-more than any other religion mind you-and it's every where! I'm not Christian, and consequently find myself to be alarmed, dismayed, annoyed and angry at how the fundies have taken over the government and media. I'm surprised how even here on DU-a POLITICAL NOT RELIGIOUS message board-the Christian religion is obsessed about! I try and keep my feelings and opinions about it civil, but sometimes myself-and people like me-can't help having knee jerk reaction while feeling bombarded if not blindsided by the constant barrage. Sorry, but I don't think you can fault people for feeling like it's being forced down their throats whether they like it or not or stop them from getting pissed off and venting that frustration about it. It's human nature. :shrug:

IMNSHO, The only solution is to follow what the founding fathers of this country intended, that of the separation of Church and State aka Religion and Politics. It's really the ONLY way there will EVER be any harmony or sanity or peace in this country or on this message board for that matter.

[Discord]

130. I think that many like you, like me

are having SERIOUS concerns about where this country is headed. (Theocracy)
Even the Christians are showing more and more concern over the blending of religion and politics.

The majority of the christians I have spoken to here on DU and in the real world agree that this is the trend in which our country seems to be headed.

The big differance I have found is the degree of reaction to it.

While many christians seem to have a ... "well, yes, there is a problem." kinda ho-hum reaction.

Most people of non-religious nature seem to have a "We need to stop this NOW!" reaction of utter disgust and outright fear.

While christains would be on the inside track if the trend continues, and they would have political and social concerns about it, its those of us who do not practice religion of any sort will be the next witches burned at the stake.

I do think our enragement over this trend is entirely justified.

[More Than A Feeling]

163. Not a solution

Separation of Church and State only covers passing laws, not religious expression in general or in politics.

[Discord]

165. Religion has NO PLACE IN POLITICS PERIOD!

I would rather see this country burned in flames than have it adopt "religious principles" as a foundation for the creation or adaptation of laws.

[More Than A Feeling]

193. I am not advocating that laws be adopted on religious priniciples

What I am trying to say is that your message seems to be that it would be illegitimate for religions or churchs or people to even lobby for laws based on their beliefs (not talking about ten commandments here, talking about helping the poor and such). They can do so, just as any other interest group can do so. The Separation of Church and State cannot stop them from doing so. The only thing the Separation of Church and State can do is keep them from endorsing candidates, and getting laws passed that favor their religion over another. But laws that achieve secular purposes like "feed the hungry" that they support for religious reasons are absolutely fine.

[Discord]

231. they blurred the line and walked into a very grey

are when it comes to involving religion into politics. The envelope gets pushed further and further all the time.

I mean the tax laws prevent them from lobbying as a church or religious orginization to a specific party or they lose their tax status, constitutional laws prevent them from the same but with a bit different restrictional clauses.

BUT

They play the chicken and egg game in politics, and like taxes... theres always a way around it when you have the financial resources.

example of chicken and egg religious politics.

though its widely understood that the majority of pro-lifers and nearly all anti-choicers are conservative christians. Abortion laws are considered a secular issue. Its a matter or "morals" ( a very popular and powerful codeword in RW politics ). Now because tax laws don't make that distinction, they cannot lobby for a law directly or risk losing their tax exempt status. BUT nothing says they cannot donate money to a community program that teaches the proper "morals". That group may further offer voulenteers for promotional ads favoring their "moral" views. Those ads serve to fund media groups, who in turn have no restrictions on what they can lobby for. Theres a million ways that money from religion makes its way into political machines. Its just nowadays, the RW religious leaders are being much more brazen and direct and not bothering to launder their money nearly as much.

[H2O Man]

187. That rules out

Martin Luther King, Jr. Because it does, your proposition has little merit.

[H2O Man]

96. Right on.

Thank you.

[mr blur]

107. Sorry, but what's so special about what you believe,

that other people should be told not to react to the things you say, especially when the things you believe may seem absurd to others? I would just really like to know why your christian beliefs put you in some "Do Not Criticise" immunity zone while other people's extreme beliefs make them fair game?

[Lerkfish]

110. well...

I'm not really asking people to react differently, but I understand the point of those that are.

If it helps, I don't think anyone is saying you can't disagree or criticize someone's arguments or beliefs. But there is an insulting and desultory tone used to do so in some cases.

If it is happening to other groups, I have and will stood by them and defended them: I defended gay DUers against those who felt their issues should be forgotten in the search for getting more votes, yet I am not gay. I can understand, as a human being, how wrong it was to suggest sweeping their concerns under the rug.

[Kurovski]

111. Thank you very much Mr. Pitt.

Being a Christian with a thick skin, I don't mind criticism, often agree with it, and many times enjoy the humor.

But sometimes it seems as though people want to viciously burn it all to the ground, and it's not just from undercover freeps planting manufactured anti-Christian quotes to point to later.

[Coyote_Bandit]

112. Critical Analysis is Impossible in My Opinion

Faith is just that - it does not rest on material evidence and cannot be logically proven. It takes as much faith to be an athiest, agnostic, deist, or Christian as it takes to be a humanist, a Jew, a Hindu, a Muslim, or to hold any other spiritual belief.

My faith is my own and I do not expect or demand that anyone else understand or adopt it. Nor do I expect that my faith - or any other faith - can withstand the rigors of critical analysis. By definition it cannot.

My personal opinion is that we would all do well to recognize that the essence of faith is that it cannot be logically proven. And in the absence of such proof no one can assert their belief to be superior to that of anyone else. Likewise, they cannot assert another's belief to be inferior.

In the meantime, a little civility and mutual respect would indeed be a nice if somewhat unexpected touch.

[kodi]

258. yet critical analysis is crucial for secular societies to function

the problem has always been when political positions are devolved from religious dogmas that are not capable of being subject to rational, logical analysis without undermining the dogma.

when that happens, heretics burn.

the schiavo case is interesting precisely because of what is said in 2 corinthians 3:6 "the letter killith but the spirit giveth life"

a person who believes that which matters is the spirit more than the letter believes that the connotation is what is important, not the denotation, the meaning not the metaphorical imagry, eg., the holy land is not israel, but where ever you and your heart are, and the spirit matters more than the body. with schiavo, the spirit is dead, yet the crazies are idolizing the body. which is to me, a sublime blasphemy against Paul's admonition about siding with the letter instead of the spirit.

all this fuss about how put off many christians are here on du when they are challenged about their faith is bullshit. no one is burning their churches, going into their churches and disrupting services, throwing anyone to be eaten by wild beasts or crucified. what is happening is that those who walk outside of their houses of worship and espouse a secular political position which they state is derived from their religious dogma are being told that in the secular marketplace of ideas, where rationalism, logic and dielectic materalism are the measuring sticks that others will use to judge their opinions, that they will have to defend their public positions with more than "god said so" to get a seat at the table.

if others consider that intolerance, then so would anyone who demands that their god says 1 plus 1 equals 3 and is contested about it with number theory.

i have never said a bad word about jesus in my life. he stands in my life as the best teacher of humanity and ethics. but i do not have to accept his divinity to understand what he was attempting to teach others. i would not presume to demand that my political opinion be given fair weight in any discussion simply because it was supported by jesus or the apostles. i expect that it will sway others only because of its rationality, logic, and adherence to facts.

[Coyote_Bandit]

268. Dialogue and a Willingness to Act for the Good of Society as A Whole

is necessary. The only critical analysis that is necessary is whether or not a particular idea or action would be to the betterment of society at large.

When we insist that either reason or faith must prevail over the other then we have lost the ability to relate to and thus convince those holding the opposite set of values that our intended course of action has merit. If you accept their basic set of beliefs, many fundies are more rational than we admit. And we should recognize that many fundies see a reliance upon reason as a type of faith - specifically, faith in the ability of man. Because fundies believe man to be fallen and imperfect they value faith over reason. Yet faith often appears irrational. We who value reason reject faith based actions. People have and will continue to differ on whether they individually value faith or reason. Critical analysis is not likely to change those preferences.

The nature of politics and government is and will continue to be inherently practical. Accomplishing practical objectives does not require winning an idealogical battle. We must be able to appeal to both people of reason and people of faith. It is self-defeating to assume that reason and faith must be completely incompatible.

Repukes - through the mouthpieces of wealthy and power hungry Christian leaders - have appealled to the sometimes naive and idealistic masses of people of faith by using inflamatory wedge issues such as abortion and gay marriage. We have allowed them to exploit those issues. They will continue to do so until we learn how to appeal to people of faith. And we appeal to them by respecting their faith and showing our agenda to be consistent with it. The essence of successful salesmanship is to appeal to the consumer - not argue that his desires and preferences are wrong.

[Dhalgren]

113. Pauline Christianity, by its very nature is intolerant.

It holds that there is only one path to "salvation" - Jesus Christ.
It holds that all other beliefs are wrong or evil.
It holds that anyone who believes in any other gods will burn in Hell for all eternity.
Pauline Christianity even holds that believing in Jesus in any way other than that espoused by the New Testament is wrong or evil and will result in eternal damnation.

Yet you say that Christianity should be accorded respect by those who do not hold it as true, while the very tenets of Christianity deny that respect to any other belief system.

Explain this to me again, I'm just an old pagan, and maybe just don't "get it"...

[madison2000]

120. Pauline Christianity is exclusive and intolerant in many ways

but liberal/progressive Christianity is ecumenical/inclusive and tolerant...it is a message of extravagant welcome.

[Dhalgren]

124. I must admit that I am not very familiar with

Christians who don't adhere completely the New Testament. But I am glad that there are some who recognize the intolerance inherent in the New Testament. I would like to hear and know more about these inclusive and tolerant Christians, because, for me, that appears to come closer to the over all message of the story of Jesus, than the intolerant one of the NT.

[madison2000]

133. All interpretations of the Bible are selective

How could it be any other way? Translating from one language to another is complicated enough to allow for lots of ambiguity- throw in several ancient languages from very different cultures- unknown authors- the most recent translations available were written hundreds of years after the original- well, its a wonder we get anything out of it at all.

Liberal Christians admit to using some passages as interpretive keys- the passage on faith hope and love in 1 Corinthians, Jesus good news for the poor, and Paul's "in christ there is neither slave nor free" being a few of the most well known. The other point is that Christianity is not just dependent upon the Bible but on the historical tradition it grew out of, and its been a long and tortuous path. Catholicism has a deep reverence for its own history (and hence it is slow to change) while fundamentalists act like they ARE the New Testament church and the last 2000 years of history never happened.

Faith should be interpreted in light of the times we live in. Responsible ministers study the historical critical method of Biblical interpretation, Biblical languages, are familiar with science and psychology, and know their own traditions well. They make faith relevant to the times we live in. There are people within every branch of Christianity who live up to this though they may not be very visible if you don't know where to look.

[Dhalgren]

136. Can you be a "Christian" in a recognizable way

and not believe that there is only one path to "salvation" - Jesus Christ. Seriously, is there such a thing as a "non exclusive Christian"? Can you be a "Christian" and hold that other beliefs are just as valid for "salvation"? Can you "hold no other Gods before me", but say that other Gods are equal?

[okasha]

224. My two cents' worth here

Truth in packaging: I'm an ex-Episcopalian Pagan, with a family background that includes Episcopalians, Southern Baptists and traditional Native American spirituality. I was educated by Marist Brothers and Ursuline nuns, with the odd Jesuit thrown in for good measure. I still read Christian theology, and I have a good many progressive Christian friends, including clergy.

Three points, it seems to me, get lost in the kind of Christian-bashing we've seen on DU. (And it's not just DU; I've seen it on other bbs, too.)

1. The Bible does not define the reality of God. The Bible is a history of human perceptions of God , and those perceptions are colored by human culture. The god who orders the slaughter of whole populations in Joshua, and in the now lost Book of the Wars of Yahweh, is a war god for a warrior society, the same sort you find in the conquering cultures of Assyria and Rome. There was a time when Yahweh was one among many gods worshiped by the proto-Israelites, and during this period of conquest, it seems, he beat out the competition. Yet by the time we get to Micah, the rudiments of faith have become far more humane. "What doth God require of thee, oh man, but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" Then there's Isaiah's Peaceable Kingdom, where the "lion and the lamb" lie down together. (In quotes because it's not an exact quote, just a very arresting image that's stuck with us for centuries.) The ministry of Jesus of Nazareth grew out of those later readings, not the kill-em-all bloodthirst that went before.

2. Christianity is not monolithic. There are churches that not only do not rely solely on the Bible--the Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox Churches all add tradition and the writings of the Church Fathers (and Mothers) to make up the three pillars of faith--but actually encourage scholarly and historical perspectives. Those churches do not interpret the Bible literally. Look up "form, source and redaction criticism" one of these days; read some of it. Scholars in these churches, and many of the laity, are quite comfortable with discussion the "Christian mythos." Randall Terry does not speak for the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church who does not speak for my friend the Baptist evolutionary biologist. When you lump all these people together, and then lump them again with rigid fundamentalists, Dominionists and Christian Reconstructionists, you not only do them a disservice but obscure the danger represented by the latter.

Progressive and moderate Christians can and do criticize fundamentalist attempts to force their theology on everyone. But the Methodist Church, say, has no way to "root out" the bad tree of Dominionism except by persuasion and through alliance with others who see the danger. These "mainline" churches don't get a lot of attention in the media, unfortunately, because they are inherently not sensationalist. If secular progressives, or atheist progressives, continue to bash them uncritically, then each group loses a useful ally and is correspondingly weakened.

3. The "Christians" who want to take over the government of the United States and make it a theocracy are specifically those Dominionists, Reconstructionists, and their kissing cousins in the white supremacist "Christian Identity" movements. They're the enemy, not your average Presbyterian or Methodist or Quaker. If you look at the history of this country, Christians and their Churches have been at the forefront of many of the movements for social justice, from Abolitionists in the 1800's to the struggle for gay and women's rights today. They remain at the forefront of the social justice struggle in Latin America. It shouldn't be difficult to acknowlege or honor those facts. They're on record and easily available.

And, on a personal note apart from the above,

4. I find the level of most of the Christian-bashing here downright puerile. Sneering is not attractive or persuasive. Of course there are similarities between elements of Christianity and elements of Paganism. Of course the Church, as a powerful, political institution, has had periods of horrific corruption. Of course the Church is only now emerging, in part, from oppressive patriarchy. This is old news, and its presentation as sudden revelation says far less about the Christians on this board than it does the bashers.

[RevCheesehead]

240. Great post. I'd like to add one thought.

re: the emergence of the Church from oppressive patriarchy.

One of the reasons that the fundies are lashing out is because THEY are afraid. They've lost their ideal vision of 1950's Americana. They want to keep women in the home and men at work, because they are afraid of what's become of the American family. Everywhere they turn, they are seeing their "old ways" being taken from them.

They cannot see how the "old ways" have been hurtful and oppressive, because their empathy-meter isn't functioning. And it is precisely because of this fear that they are screaming so loudly.

Remember "Pleasantville" ? :)

[knitter4democracy]

248. Wonderful!

Thank you!

:applause:

[eallen]

131. The interesting question is: What other kind of Christianity is there?

Half of the New Testament, including the earliest parts, were written by Paul. The gospels were written to backstop Pauline doctrine, and provide orthodoxy to Pauline churches, though it's thought from other sources also. There's a very real sense in which most of the world likely never would have heard of Jesus, were it not for Paul.

That makes it pretty hard to strip Paul from Christianity. Yeah, you can red letter the Bible. But that way lies more a Deism or agnosticism that simply says somewhere behind the Paulist version of Jesus's teachings are some good morals.

[Discord]

117. Just gonna drop in my .02 here

I am very careful to direct my flamethrower at those who deserve it. I always try to avoid over-generalizations. Alot of whats going on right now, is twofold backlash. Unfortunately, right now, the Fundies are front and center and getting alot of national attention. This is bringing "christianity" under a microscope, and many do tend to lump everyone together. I think alot of the flaming that is offending some here on DU isn't the intent of many of the posters, but the inability to properly eloquate their anger/frustration/fear.

I wont deny that some posts are direct attacks on all Christians, and I cannot condone that type of activity. It's bad for everyone, and solves nothing. I can fully understand why some have taken offense at the nature of some of the posts.

I have also seen a small number of inflamitory lashbacks from some "christians", that some of non-religious nature would find offensive. While I'm sure that they were directed at a specific person, their posts, and the wording in which they were written, applied to anyone who would have a similar view of religion.

I am a very outspoken non-religios person myself. I don't attack the person of religious faith, or even that of the religion itself unless its specifically addressing a issue that was raised to me. I do speak out regularly against instatutionalized religion, for that is where the majority of my issues are derived from. I wont get into any of that now, for that is not the reason that I post, and would only serve to throw more fuel on the fire.

I would end in saying that I believe that in many cases, both sides have tended to overreact. We were all warned upon joining here, that there are times you need to have some thick skin. I have bit my tongue on more than one occasion because the person who posted something that I found offensive, was so obviously ignorant, that I would be doing nothing but wasting my time and escalating an already volitale situation.

Just something that I think we should all try to keep in mind.

[Lerkfish]

138. good post. I'm reminded of when Twain said;

be careful when arguing with a fool, that he is not doing the same.

I also think there are overreactions on both sides.

so, where does that leave us?

I think people should be able to criticize religion, or discuss it or question it. I also think a religious person should feel comfortable enough to join that discussion without having to fend off misdirected attacks...which gets in the way of the discussion.

I think non-religious folk need to realize that just because they feel a need to unload on what they see happening in right wing religious america, that they have allies, and not enemies here at DU in the liberal christians. We're on the same side.

AND

I think religious folk need to let it go more often than we do, and just accept that someone else's negative baggage is not necessarily directed at us, even though it seems to be worded that way.

A very good sermon I heard once made this analogy: If you need to criticize your neighbor, pretend the criticism has to ride in a horsecart of love. The larger the criticism, the larger the love needed to deliver it. If you have a big criticism, and no love, it won't get very far.
And the larger you make the lovecart, by comparison the smaller the criticism seems in importance. Those with the largest lovecarts realize the criticism wasn't that important to deliver, anyways, because it gets lost in the huge cart. The minister said we should strive to have carts so big with love that we forget to deliver criticism at all.

in a way, a kind of nonsensical analogy, but it stuck with me all these years.

[southlandshari]

212. Well said!

n/t

[Zenlitened]

119. Re: Judaism subjected to the same 'critical analysis' as Christianity

If Judaism was the dominant political paradigm in America, I'm sure it would be.

Would some of it be regarded as 'personally insulting' by some people? Probably so.

But until we can come up with a universally agreed-upon definition of what constitutes criticism and what constitutes insult, I think the best advice is: Don't take it personally.

The alternative you've proposed here seems to amount to "Don't say things I don't want to hear."

That strikes me as... unworkable, to say the least.

[ultraist]

147. Comparing an oppressed minority to a majority is illogical

A minority religion does not have the power to protect itself from attacks of a majority. As you pointed out, Judaism is not a dominant paradigm in our society.

Would we consider making white males a protected class as blacks and women are?
:eyes:

[EST]

123. People ARE judgmental

It's how we are, all the time. People are also xenophobic.
As many great thinkers have pointed out-it's how we are "thrown" to be. The measure of humanity is, in most cases, how well we manage to control these baser instincts and look at others in terms of their finer qualities, not merely our own reading of our experience of them.
Christianity, as well as most other religions, is based on experiences that those of us who are not particularly religious simply are not privy to. We who pride ourselves on being realists object to making any decisions based on anything that is not "real," IE- not quantifiable, not possessing of real, hard physicalness, measurability, or strong evidence.

Let's face it. Experience is the only "truth" and it is only true experience, not true as regards the universe as a whole. I may mistake a stump, in the dark, out in the woods, as a bear and it is a true "bear" experience. Even though, in reality, it is only a stump, the experience is a real bear and I will react to it as such.

This holds true for spiritual experiences, as well. I may have a real ah-hah! experience or a real breakthrough in understanding, but to someone else it was only a pretty view of the grand canyon or a trip to Macdonalds.

When someone else sees my stump and, rightly, concludes that my experience, although real, was based on a faulty assumption, they are left with several possible courses of action. Namely, they can ignore it, point out the mistake, assume that there really was a bear which is now a stump, or any other of many alternatives. The point is, in the reality of some, the requirement for a supernatural explanation of circumstances is important, even obligatory. For others it's an anathema, an unwillingness to face reality, or perhaps even a fraud.

In these excitable times, with obvious fraud running rampant, the temptation to name anything that is purported to be true, in the face of evidence to the contrary, as outright fraud is overwhelming.

In my own experience, there is no need to hypothesize a supernatural source for anything. What is, is, and what ain't, ain't, and there is no need to go further. In ALL my discussions with those who propose a supernatural order to circumstances, the lack of information, the desire to avoid critical analysis, the unwillingness to allow for a natural cause or source, inevitably befalls the religious argument. What appears to me to be an attempt to avoid reality, no doubt, appears to them as-you guessed it-an attempt to avoid reality, with different faces.

While there is a desperate need to avoid belittling anyone of good will, the lack of a common experience can result in a "broad brush" painting of all people of faith. Is it wrong to say hurtful things about well intentioned people? Of course it is! It is just as painful, and as ineffective, to blame the evils of the world on the religious as it is to blame the "pagan" or the "atheist."

[izzybeans]

125. Us dial-upers knew this thread would provoke a response

by the long pause that occurs just before loading. Hey Will thanks!

this reminds me of something a professor once said in a class I can't remember the name of...Huh?... anyway. It goes something like: even us atheists practice idolatry and will also come running with the symbolic pitchforks when our own private iconoclast steps into the town square. Idol smashing is pointless and counterproductive no matter whose archetype is shown the dirty end of the shitkicker. All you are left with is a polarity organized around a bunch of broken idols that no one gives that much thought to anyway. The idol smasher loves to come around on those special days, and for many the only days, that the idol is given a second thought. Easter is easy pickens' for their loathing.

The incivility of this whole "My religion is bigger than your religion" hullaballoo or even the my atheistic mythologies are less mythical than your spiritual ones just erases allegiances that should exist in the first place. The simple word for this is divisive. Take it from this atheist, I don't see the point in smashing someone's tools for self-expression, nor a faintly held belief in a person they only read about when they were children. I'd rather just talk about some stuff...whatever comes up is fine.

All we are left with by these attacks is no solid footing to argue our own position from. The ethical high-road is taken apart by the hypocrisy of progressive idol smashers. Mr. Pitt points out that if we were to attack fanatical Jews and mischaracterize the entire spectrum of Judaism as consisting of fanatical Jews that would be a serious transgression. A point I'm not as certain about myself, but it works for the next statement: But by labeling all Christians as Marxist opioids, as if their ideology is more mystifying then our own, we are just acting out the script the republicans have written for all of us God haters at DU. I don't hate God. I just don't believe in one. That gives me no license to through rocks at pictures of the virgin Mary.

Rather than understand the local content of the sermons spreading this hate, as we should be doing if we are to understand it, we attack the larger framework that has nothing to do with it. There are only a few handfuls of people at that hospice just as there are a very small minority of Jewish Settlers occupying Palestinian lands. Perhaps a better tactic would be to go after those who would allow such conflicts to rage on for only a small number of fanatics. Just turn the shit off. They'll go away.

[ultraist]

128. Christianity is not minority religion, as is Judaism in this country

Christians are not targets of Hate groups, such as the KKK, as are Jews. The Anti Defamation league advocates for oppressed groups, not a majority group, such as white Christians or white hetereo males.

Christianity has been the source of much of the misogynist and homophobic movements in this country, leaders of oppression.

Calls to protect an oppressive majority group smack of the "reverse discrimination" argument.

[name not needed]

139. You're forgetting the Klan hates Catholics too

[Violet_Crumble]

129. For folk who take offense at religion being called a fairy tale...

I've referred to religion as that before, and not just Christianity, but all religion. If people take offense at that one, it's more likely because those people have a problem tolerating the fact that people with differing opinions on religion have just as much right to air them as they do...

In my opinion, criticising religion is fine, but where it crosses the line is when negative generalisations are made about the followers of that religion, and all are painted in the same brush as the whackiest of the bunch. That's not on. Then again, I expect there's folk so sensitive on the issue that even referring to the circus of fraks outside that hospice as Christian nutjobs would be seen as an attack on Christians at DU...

Violet...

[ultraist]

154. "....a symptom of weakness and confusion."

http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/soul.html

The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.

~Einstein

Insult or critical analysis? Opinion?

Why are those who don't believe in a supernatural, anthropomorphic "God" being discouraged to voice their opinions?

[Lerkfish]

159. I think you misunderstand the objection.

I don't think believers are objecting to your voicing your opinions....they are objecting when your opinions are framed in such a way as to denigrate their opinions.

I'm amazed when nonbelievers think using terms like "irrational" "fairy tale" "a symptom of weakness and confusion" "ignorant" "mindless", is neutral.

For one thing, it inaccurately assumes that all believers simply adopt a religion because someone hands it to them. For many believers, like myself, the decision to believe culminates a life long search for truth, self examination and thorough investigation. Before I decided to be a christian, at the age of 12, I read the bible cover to cover 5 times, from beginning to end, because I wanted to UNDERSTAND what I was thinking about getting into. I have endured many hardships in my life which have caused me to EXAMINE my faith, and what it truly means to me. I have thought about and prayed about what it means to live a purposeful life, and what values are important to me. I have decided that the teachings of Jesus are riveting, beautiful signposts along the path I chose to follow.

to label me as "irrational" or "mindless" weak or confused is a disservice to my faith, or anyone's choice of what to believe. The difference, apparently, between you and I is that i would never label an atheist as irrational or mindless, weak or confused. I am respectful of anyone's search for truth in their lives, even if and perhaps especially when it differs from mine. I celebrate the spiritual diversity that is the human condition.

the reason it is really wrong to disparage those who believe or don't believe as you do is that you forego an opportunity to enrich your own spiritual understanding by examing what you believe in a respectful way against how another believes.

I think, from what i can tell, the majority of DU believers are not trying to prevent anyone different from coming to the table and sharing the meal, they are instead appalled that every meal has to be a food fight.

[Discord]

164. I'll probably get some flack for this one but here goes...

You are the exception. Not the norm. The majority of religious people INHERIT their religion and few will wander far from the way in which they were raised.

[Lerkfish]

170. How would one know what the norm is, if one pre-assumes one way only?

Its possible that a preconception of how people are, arrived at before you meet them, shuts down the opportunity for one to find out how they actually are.

Its easy to have a preconception that all tall people play basketball, if one never asks any tall people whether they play basketball or not.

Preconceptions are easy. Truly understanding requires a bit more work.

I wager you might be surprised to consider that from the very fact DU liberal christians are HERE in the first place negates the preconception you have in mind of christians.

[Discord]

180. oh. i would expect that the majority of the poster on DU

are exceptions to the norm in many different ways.

I do say that caringly, its part of what makes us all special for even being here.

It can get heated, and we're all opinionated to say the least, but I have truly come across very few I would hold a grudge against much after the debate subsided.

Were all here for the most part because we DO care. Even if theres 68,000 different ideas on how how to get us to the promised land!

[Violet_Crumble]

195. I think I understand it...

Some opinions are apparently more worthy than others. If my opinion that religion is a fairy-tale is seen as denigrating someone else's opinion, then why doesn't the same apply when it comes to my opinions? Wouldn't anyone expressing an opinion that the whole god thing and the bible are the real deal be denigrating my opinion?

Violet...

[Lerkfish]

227. hmm...not sure I can explain this adequately without an analogy.

I think you have a valid point buried in there somewhere, but it seems like you are saying that for someone to have a belief is as denigrating to you as you belittling their belief...not sure I'd agree with that.

an analogy might be: Sally has a doll, which sally likes. Jennifer doesn't have or want a doll. Jennifer calls sally's doll stupid, or the idea of having dolls as stupid. That's going out of your way to detract from something sally has.
However, it does not logically follow that sally having a doll automatically denigrates Jennifer not having a doll...which doesn't make sense.

Maybe what you're trying to say is if Jennifer belittles Sally for having a doll AND Sally belittles Jennifer for not having a doll, then they are both in the wrong...which I would agree with that.

But, IMHO, what seems to be happening most often is that Jennifer is belittling Sally, and Sally is saying don't belittle me, and Jennifer says that simply because Sally and her doll exist, it is an affront to Jennifer, even if Sally does not say anything bad about Jennifer.

Keep in mind, though, I did not start this thread, I'm only trying to clarify what I perceive as the intent of those who did...mainly because its seems clear to me but not clear to you and others.
I would not have started this thread, but I do speak up within the thread. I have stated in this thread (or another like it) that starting threads asking people to be more tolerant is simply not going to work. I think we see that happening.

[Violet_Crumble]

236. No, me believing religion to be a fairy tale IS my belief...

Just like you believing religion not to be a fairy tale is yr belief. If me believing religion to be a fairy tale is not an opinion but belittling yr belief, then doesn't the same go when it comes to you believing religion not to be a fairy tale? How is that then not belittling my belief? Or don't my beliefs matter?

Yr analogy doesn't work because it makes the assumption that atheists are missing something, which we're not at all. How can someone miss something that doesn't exist?

I wouldn't have started a thread like this either. Mainly because I steer well clear of threads about religion, but also because I find it a bit irritating to read things (and this isn't aimed at you) claiming that what I believe is offensive to some other people and therefore I shouldn't express my opinion, whileSee, I'm generally tolerant of religion right up to the point where it's getting shoved down my throat or religious folk are using their beliefs to try to change the law and restrict my rights. If the fact that I believe that religion is a fairy tale, where the existance of a god is about as believable as the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy makes me intolerant to some folk, then I don't really understand what I have to believe to make me more tolerant, or even if it'd be worth my while trying. I don't believe in being so tolerant that my beliefs are pretty much silenced...

Violet...

[ashmanonar]

200. well, technically...

the term irrational is accurate when describing religion.

Main Entry: ir·ra·tio·nal
Pronunciation: ir-'ra-sh&-n&l
Function: adjective
: not rational: as a : not governed by reason, mental clarity, or understanding b : not governed by a fair consideration of facts or evidence; broadly :

if taken literally as the opposite of rational, religion fits irrational exactly. it's a belief that is purely founded on faith, not on any consideration of facts or evidence (as all rational beliefs are)

some of the other terms are less delicate, yes. but irrational is a word that will be used when describing religion, and unless you accept that, you're going to continue to be insulted by religion convos.

i honestly try to avoid religious conversations, because they only lead to trouble.

[Lerkfish]

230. and you think "irrational" has no negative connotation?

I appreciate your providing the dictionary definition...but do you honestly intend to make the claim that calling someone irrational is a neutral comment?

[ashmanonar]

243. if it's used in the proper context, then yes, i do believe it's neutral.

but if someone's yelling epithets at religion, then pretty much everything they say is negative.

now mind you, i'm not personally religious at all. but i do respect true believers of any religion, who do not let their faith/zealotry cloud their judgement.

[ultraist]

202. So you think it's inappropriate to use an Einstein quote

when discussing opinions on religion? Do you also believe using a Jefferson quote is insulting to your faith?

How far should people go to limit their opinions?

Critical analysis includes criticisms. If the statements were only praise, it would not be a critical analysis.

[Lerkfish]

229. no, what I'm trying to say is...

that words carry their own energy. Using words like "irrational" "deluded", etc, etc, are loaded modifiers that are not neutral. They have definite connotations, which I think if you were being honest you would acknowledge is true.
I"m not personally asking for any limitations of the opinions of others, I'm trying to explain, that these words can be very loaded, if used against you, but the people using them pretend they are neutral adjectives and then act as if no harm is done by using them.

I'm also not the originator of this thread, but I am trying to clarify the extent of the problem.

I don't think, for example, that any christians here are asking that nonbelievers praise them. I also don't think, for that matter, that any of them are asking for critical analysis, either. But simply because you feel that calling ones' beliefs an irrational fairy tale, or symptomatic of weakness, is a valid criticism does take into account the consequences of doing so.

A lot of people are saying that christians should develop a thicker skin, but I say anyone who says that is really saying "I want to continue to denigrate your beliefs, but I'd prefer if you simply took it better" That's really unrealistic. You KNOW these descriptions are loaded and prone to negative interpretation, therefore you should accept that people are not going to like being categorized in such a way.

As an example, just because someone might consider it a valid critcial analysis to say that black people are lazy and shiftless, does not negate the condescending implications of using that language.

If you insist on being condescending and derisive about our beliefs, you should expect that not all of us are going to like or even accept that.

It reminds me of when someone goes out of their way to tell me I'm a fat pig, as if I asked for their opinion of me, and as if they expect me to just stand there and say "thank you, may I have another insult, sir?" The real question is, why do they need to tell I'm fat, in their opinion? what is the real intent of such an observation?
Even if I WERE fat, I would resent the comments because they are not intended constructively. They are instead, intended to put me in my place, to ridicule a perceived fault, and perhaps to make the person saying it feel smugly superior.

Why do we need you to make a critical analysis of our beliefs? The answer is we really don't, anymore than you need us to make a critical analysis of your nonbelief.

People's beliefs are personal, sometimes more personal than their own families, depending on the person. If I insulted your mother, even if I was quoting shakespeare or einstein, would that make it feel any better?

Ask yourself WHY you have this compelling need to tell me what is wrong with my beliefs.

If it is from a constructive angle, in the desire to make me a better person, then your rhetoric would reflect that.

Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.

[UdoKier]

137. Judaism isn't subject to the same "ridicule" because...

The vast majority of Jews don't take the Bible as a literal retelling of history, but what it is - a book full of allegory and metaphor.

Christians get the brunt of it because they are the ones trying to force everybody else in the society to follow THEIR rules and observe THEIR rituals.

I disagree with the broad-brush statements that ALL Christians are like the wacked-out fundies, but it seems people who are annoyed by the "fairy tale" type comments (I personally prefer "myth" or "mythology") must be quite hypersensitive and weak of faith. After all, how can you be a grown adult practicing any religion and not taken into consideration the fact that all religions are based on stories that have only as much basis in demonstrable fact as a fairy tale.

For all we know, there is an all-powerful God, who sits and watches and does nothing as we slaughter one another on this planet, and for all we know, dragons and fairies once populated the landscape. Neither can be proven or disproven, and they are both based on old folk tales.

It's religious people who have failed to keep their own beliefs and superstitions at home, and continue to drag them into what should be a secular public debate. I have yet to have an atheist come knock on my door and try to convert me, or an atheist come on TV and tell me that I have to follow his belief system.

[Lerkfish]

140. The same is not true on internet discussions...

I think it has become an outlet for atheists to do their own version of "knocking on the door". Often, an atheist will start a thread that blasts believers or mocks their beliefs as fairy tales or worse, or ascribes all manner of evil to those who believe.
in the religion forum a poster said he intended to keep harrassing believers until they "came to their senses" and agreed with his own non-belief.

That's sort of the same thing as knocking on someone's door, in the virtual world.

[Discord]

145. I disagree. We simply don't have anything to "sell"

As someone who is non-religious, I have only once started a thread regarding religion. And the post was actually quite pro-Christian but anti-fundie.

Now shortly after it of course deteriorated into a flamefest, as most threads on this topic eventually do.

But I would strongly disagree that Atheists are starting Christian bashing threads. For one, they would be nearly immediately deleted by the mods. Or start off as raising valid points with constructive criticisms that deteriorate as soon as someone ELSE posts something offensive to one side or the other.

[Lerkfish]

151. then our perspectives differ.

In my experience, there is about an equal number of bashing threads from both sides.

I'm not sure why the nonreligious have trouble admitting they do this, but all it would take is for you to scroll down the list of threads in the religion forum and see how many are started by nonbelievers, in such a way as to promote nonbelief as the "truth" and religion as a "fairy tale".

that IS selling something..that's selling the concept that nonreligion is the only rational, sane point of view to have, and that believers are irrational, ignorant, blinded and mislead.

That is really no different from stating the reverse: that nonbelievers are ignorant of the 'truth" of religion.

Not sure why you don't seem able to see the mirror relationship, but I'm fine with simply disagreeing on that account.

[Discord]

155. Ahh see.. I don't venture into the religion forums

Being non-religious, I don't belong in there. If I did choose to venture in, it certainly wouldn't be to go into someone elses home to bash them.

[Lerkfish]

161. actually, you DO belong there...

the religious forums is for the discussion of religion from every perspective.
believing is not a prerequisite to having an opinion on religion.

[Discord]

167. Oh. I have many many opinions on religion.

Its something I exhibit much restraint with even while posting on these threads in the general sections.

[Inland]

214. But most Christians don't believe in a literal bible, either.

I certainly took the assertions of fairy tales and myths to NOT mean the flood, or Adam and Eve. I understood it to mean Him Hisself, the big You Know Who. That's a lot harder to brush off.

And it is true that Xtians are trying to impose religious beliefs in the political sphere, and that's wrong--and no less wrong than trying to impose it here. The only difference that I can see is that in this little corner of the world, the anti-christians feel they are the majority and should rule, and that the tables are turned and its their turn to be offensive.

As they can't be proven or disproven, and are divisive, and thoroughly boring, I suggest the theology forum for all those who want to beat each other over the head with metaphysics.

[Zorra]

141. I agree, lumping Christians in with the RW CINO fundies is a big mistake.

IMO, they are polar opposites, and a maybe it would be a good thing to make a distinction between these two very disparate groups when discussing issues relative to RW fundy CINO influence on culture and democracy.

[Discord]

148. amazing that when I posted a thread suggesting that

issue specifically I was chastised about the political aspects of it.

*boggle*

[Discord]

149. Self-Deleted Double-Post

[Cleita]

143. Hey, watch it there.

I'm a member of the Fairy religion. FYI, it is the oldest religion in the world and predates all the others including Judaism. All the other religions of the world have incorporated parts of the Fairy religion into their dogma. :-) Oh, I don't proselytize.

Insulting people is always wrong, I agree, but stopping them from expressing some rational points to irrational people isn't helpful either. For instance when people say we need religion to be moral, I say we need to inform them that it isn't true.

[Discord]

152. Your a pagan?

[Cleita]

156. Nope, I don't belong to any sect or church.

My Fairy religion is my very own and will stay that way. :-). However, I will tell you this much. Everything that exists in the material universe that we percieve from the five senses in the prison of our bodies has spiritual counterparts. Sometimes I am able to touch it with my spirit. There is good and evil there too.

[Discord]

160. I can fully repsect your personal spirituality.

I have my own too. ;)

which is why you'll never see me refer to myself as athiest or agnostic. I am non-religious.

:D

[Cleita]

168. I used to consider myself an atheist but really I don't have

anything in common with true atheists. I think I am more against man made religious expressions than anything else. Once you start writing stuff down as dogma, you are trapped in it.

[Discord]

181. sounds familiar. =) nt

[ashmanonar]

201. the term spiritual is probably the most used

for someone who is not religious in the sense of an organized religion, but has their own idea of how the world came into being and what role humans have in the world.

just your friendly neighborhood thesaurus.

:7

[Lerkfish]

153. that's just another form of proselytizing.

"For instance when people say we need religion to be moral, I say we need to inform them that it isn't true."

contained in that thought is the need to persuade someone from their beliefs, which differ from yours, to adopt your beliefs.

"For instance when people say we don't need religion to be moral, I say we need to inform them that it isn't true."

I have no problem with people trying to argue their point of view is correct...I have a problem with using words like rational/irrational to argue with believers. Consider: if you think calling someone irrational will persuade them to abandon their beliefs, you might be surprised when they instead merely perceive you as intolerant.

[Cleita]

157. Actually, I think it's wrong to get people to abandon their beliefs.

What I think is wrong is for them to impose their beliefs on me. So to say that I am immoral because my life style, which hurts no one, isn't like theirs, I have to argue against. Not only that these same entities are now trying to pass laws to enforce their moral beliefs on everyone.

[Lerkfish]

166. but are DU christians doing that?

I agree that what right wing "christians" are doing is wrong.
As do most DU liberal christians.

So, again I ask...have you witnessed that wrong attitude here? or are you witnessing it elsewhere? Is it fair to call liberal christians to task for the wrongs committed by conservative christians?

I think we all need to respond to offense WHEN THEY OCCUR instead of assuming they will occur and punishing people before the crime is committed. You might be surprised to discover that liberal christians SHARE your viewpoint on this issue.
I know I do.

[Discord]

158. thats your interpetation. but conversely...

"For instance when people say we don't need religion to be moral, I say we need to inform them that it isn't true."

For me it is a simple truth. That in this society, many non-religious people are looked at as immoral, and viewed with contempt and addressed in a condecending tone. That we are somehow less human because we lack the presence of some higher spirituality.

Where many religious people can show respect to those of other religions, they often fail to show us respect and are viewed somehow as if we are "lacking" or "less than".

[Lerkfish]

162. I'll make you a challenge...

how about WAITING until someone here at DU makes a moral judgement against you for not believing before you react as if they have? I have rarely witnessed that here.

I do not dispute there are believers acting in just that way, but you just acted that way yourself, which proves that nonbelievers can act that way...since you don't like it when others do it, why do you do it yourself?

[Discord]

171. At this point, no one has made a direct attack against me

personally, but have found many posts that I would personally consider an affront to my views.

I really don't want to get too much into it, but I am VERY much against ALL forms of institutionalized religion.

I have my views, I have my reasons, and I have many experiences in my life which have formed who and what I am and why I have much bitterness against institutionalized religion. But its a personal matter and not for public consumption.

I must stress one point. CLEARLY!

I have nothing against PEOPLE who are religious!
My issues are with the INSTITUTIONS of religion.

Which is why I am able to talk to religious folks (like most of my family) without taking that bitterness out on them.

EDITED: wow, my spelling just went out the window for a minute there.

[Lerkfish]

174. You don't think your bitterness colors your perceptions?

I understand having negative baggage against organized religion, I've known many that do, and I also have my complaints about organized religion.

But you say you've never been personally attacked here at DU, that's great!
I'm sorry though that some posts have offended you in different ways...

But is there any reason why your own personal perception against organized religion needs to be taken out on DU christians?

Why should anyone on these boards "preemptively" strike out at any other group, on the fear that they would attack them at some future date?

[Discord]

182. absolutely not.

If anything, I'm a diplomat. I strive to not offend anyone unless directly and personally attacked. I can have very heated debates and not carry a grudge after. Many debates usually end in a agree to disagree decision. I dont take very much personally.

And I dont take it out on DU christians, most of my comments refer to the instatution of it, and not the people themselves.

I make the generilzation about inheriting religion, because by and large, almost every religious person I've met, had the same as their parents. Who had the same as their grandparents. yes, from time to time, someone strikes out on their own, but its hard to refute that the mainstay or religion is generational. Its also how it has lasted for so long.

sometimes I'm just lazy, but I can usually clarify most points I make. :)

[LittleClarkie]

146. Criticism vs bashing

Apparently some don't know the difference between the two.

My standard answer is to ask the person to substitute another group in their statement to see if it still comes of as insensitive or prejudicial. I mean would we suggest that a black person should be able to take some comments in stride? Or a Muslim. Or a Jew?

Would you tell any other group that if their faith was stronger, a few deriding comments shouldn't bother them?

I used to hang out on an atheist usenet group as their token theist. I never could get most of them to see that they were taking their animosity toward on set of Christians, the Fundamentalists, and applying it with a broad brush to all Christians. Some couldn't even stand to see a cross on the side of the road where some people will set up a memorial to a loved one who died in that spot.

Here, it just feels like I'm getting fragged on occasion. I mean, I would never think to go into a thread that was talking about atheism and rail against the concept of atheism. And yet when prayer threads cropped up before each debate, there had to be one joker in the crowd who felt the need to come in and rail against the "bronze age primitive religion."

Their right, of course, but some of these threads were works of beauty. I wish they could have seen that. We had Jews and Muslims and Buddists and even a Wiccan or two piping in. It was a lovely bit of unity.

Can't we all just sort of live and let live amongst ourselves. My cuppa tea isn't your cuppa tea. That sort of thing? Is that possible? Can't we all just get along? (/rodneyking)

[Behind the Aegis]

169. The whining

There have been some inappropriate comments about Christianity and Christians. There is an alert button for those comments. There are also times when 'board brushstrokes' are applied to any number of groups. But, even when someone is careful to include "some" or "not all" of whatever group, Christians in this case, people jump all over that poster, then a flamefest starts.

However, I am SICK and TIRED of the "poor, persecuted Christian" shit I hear at this board! Offended? Alert! That is what the moderators are for, at least that is my understanding! But, if you read the other threads that are similar to this one, you will see that people are offended by a variety of things. Some are offended when Christianity is called "fairy tales" or "mythology." Some are not. So what now? We cannot express ourselves lest we offend?

I am OFFENDED when someone says "lifestyle" when commenting about my being gay, but I brush it off or I attempt to educate that my being gay is not a "lifestyle" or a choice. I am REALLY OFFENDED when someone uses their religion to deny me and others like me our CIVIL (EQUAL) RIGHTS. I don't care if there religion condemns it, but when they use their power to create laws to prevent me from living mine, THEN I have a real problem. Is my commenting on that offensive?

I am OFFENDED when the rights of women are considered negotiable because of someone's religious beliefs! I am OFFENDED when groups of people are denied housing, medical treatment, and a list of other things because they are different or don't have the same religious beliefs! I am OFFENDED that the government will give money to groups that DISCRIMINATE because it is contrary to their RELIGIOUS beliefs! And, I am offended when pointing these things out, the offending group cries "victim!" To me, it is as repulsive as a rapist claiming s/he is the REAL victim because they couldn't have sex when they wanted, or were too tempted! To me, it is as repulsive when someone PHYSICALLY bashes a gay person, then claims s/he was the REAL victim because the gay person might have made a pass at them!

This is SUPPOSED to be a SECULAR government. So why can't we comment on certain groups attacking that premise?

As for your comment about Jews, if Jews were the majority religion, I am sure it would be subjected to this kind of 'critical analysis'. As it is, Jews, gays, Wiccans, and MANY other groups suffer more slings and arrows here than do Christians on the whole!

[jonnyblitz]

172. Thank you. great post.

:thumbsup:

[Behind the Aegis]

173. I appreciate it!

I have been sitting here for over an hour developing what I would say. I read all the posts (before I posted) and the other threads related to this. To me, this all seems to be "much ado about nothing!" :)

[jonnyblitz]

177. this whole topic has dominated my thoughts all day to the point

of where I can't concentrate or accomplish anything else. the time you took to develop your thoughts for this post were worth it for me. :hi:

[Behind the Aegis]

179. What a lovely thing to say!

I am glad you appreciated the post and the thought that went into it. Just goes to show SOME of us aren't always out to attack another's beliefs! :)

[beam me up scottie]

178. Thank you, you said

it much better than I could have.

[Cleita]

185. Thanks for a well thought out essay.n/t

[okTracer]

190. Thank You!

Just as most religions don't want government in their religion... Religion has no business in government.

[Inland]

210. I don't see how the attacks by some Xtians on the principle

of church and state makes it an open season on Christians or Christianity. Go ahead and comment on those attacking the principle. What about those Christians who accept the principle--do that have to have their beliefs belitted as the price of admission to liberalland?

I don't see how it allows one to say, "Offended? Well, everyone's offended by something."

All I am saying is that those who are wrong are wrong, and those who aren't deserve some respect without having to stamp on the cross as the sailors to Japan used to do.

That is all.

[Behind the Aegis]

228. Open season?

You are being a tad over-dramatic, no? See the real problem is even when people are careful and state they are commenting about the "nut balls", some will still take issue with that! There is no pleasing some of you all. So, I will continue to express my opinions, even if they are contrary with Christianity. I can do things politely, but at some point, some people do need to get a thicker skin...they seem to expect everyone else to have one.

[Swamp Rat]

175. I have met people who consider Christianity a "death cult."

Have you ever met a Yanonami, Warí or Jívaro? I have, when I lived in Brasil and traveled the Americas. For them it is a fact that Christianity is a "death cult," though it was expressed in other languages... "culto de morte" etc. They told me so, many times, and I believe them.

On the other hand, there are Christians who work 'miracles' helping the poor and sick, like that gentle soul Dorothy Stang who was recently murdered by a rancher in Amazonas. :cry:

I understand your point Will Pitt, and agree (especially 'insults verses critical analysis'), but wouldn't this apply to just about any thread?

[Cleita]

184. There is a belief among spiritualists that you

reach heaven, God, universal truth or whatever your purpose in life and death is by many paths. For some it's belief in formal religions, for others it's not. It is a matter of listening to your inner voice and leading a good life by what ever means you chose that counts. That's why no one religion can claim to be the best one or the only one.

[Swamp Rat]

188. Aêpa, Azéharamo aypopa!

Amen and thanks... in Tupinamba (Tembé Tenetéhar). :)

[LittleClarkie]

192. Re: "apply to just about any thread?"

That's why the alert button is your friend. When criticism turns to bash, I find it quite useful, though not always completely effective.

[Swamp Rat]

197. Yes, it is a handy tool.

I try to avoid threads where my knee-jerk reaction is to open up with a salvo of criticisms, especially if it concerns a person's faith. Hence, you will not find me posting attacks on Christianity on Christian or any other religion threads. That would be like walking into a church and calling everyone 'X-tian cannibal monsters'.

However, if I am consorting and commiserating with mopaul on one of his threads, and someone criticizes me for my opinion/feelings, I will bite back hard.

[Donailin]

189. You're extremely opinionated

and this time I agree. However, in the course of the last ten years on the internet, I 've found myself defending Christianity against folks who have referred to Christ as "God in a meatsuit," and "Savior on a stick" so, one learns to develope a thick skin. Plus, Christians throughout the ages, especially Constantine, haven't been entirely helpful.

[trudyco]

191. Critical Analysis - Phooey!

Everybody has a belief system. Some beliefs are core beliefs. If you believe in a religion it is probably part of your core beliefs. You are going to be more sensitive to attack on your core beliefs, particlularly from those you feel are your "friends".

People who claim they are not religious because they only believe in critical analysis of everything are full of BS. They just rationalize their own beliefs.

For example, is there anybody in DU who believes that if somebody decides to go on a shooting spree we should just let them? Why not? Because you believe that is wrong. You can rationalize it all you want, the fact is it is your BELIEF.

As for bashing versus respectful disagreement. Well, some of it is the DU moderators set the tone. Seems to me when I first joined in the fall it was not OK to use the F word. Now I have to be careful the kids aren't reading my PC over my shoulder. The tone is pretty lax here. Another thing is time - it takes time to dig through all the issues on DU and then to respond is even more time. Sometimes I take the time and sometimes I'm guilty of typing first, thinking later. Another thing is that the Democrats and/or progressives have refused to articulate their core set of beliefs, what they stand for. Everything is open to debate and there is no refuge of common ground. This on top of dealing with the scariest administration/MSM this country has seen is exhausting. We all get frazzled. It would be nice to see people backing off the dogpiling.

For example, I should be able to say I believe TS should be allowed to live without somebody claiming I'm emotional (as opposed to them the cool, rational one). If I say I'm uncomfortable with the husband having all the say in her living or dieing, that her parents have no say now that she is mentally handicapped, I should not be told I'm trashing her husband and I'm projecting from some (nonexistent) bad male relationship. Anyways, you get the idea. We all have our own belief systems and none are more rational than another. Some DUers forget this, or don't get it, and it hurts the progressive cause.

[Hardrada]

194. But isn't a critique of the followers of any religion

an elementary logical fallacy? I.e. Mistaking the Part for the Whole.
So and so and Jim and Joe are whacko nutcases and so is their whole church!! Inquiring minds want to know. (Should be an abbreviation:IMWK).

[patricia92243]

196. Very simply -Thank you.

[knitter4democracy]

221. Yes, thank you!

I really try not to get offended by anything, but some posts I've read have been over the top. Thanks, Will!

[TrustingDog]

206. I'm sure I've insulted some Christians somewhere along the line here...

but if you're a true Christian, you'd know well enough it wasn't a personal assault or insulting what you believe.

So I apologize to anyone that I may have hurt, but it really wasn't about you - it's about THAT CIRCUS OUT THERE!

[SmokingJacket]

222. We DO let ourselves say things about Christianity that we would not

say about Islam or Judaism. And we excuse it by saying either "They hate us, so it's okay!" or "Well, they're shoving it in our faces, so they're asking for it!"

But it's hypocritical. We can't say that Freepers are evil because they're anti-Semitic or call Muslims "towelheads," then openly mock or disparage Christianity. I've only seen a tiny bit of that here... but we edge close rather a lot.

A personal example: I was complaining that most of the local radio stations have been "taken over by Christians." My freeper mother called me on that one. She said, "Would you say that if they were "taken over" by Jews?" And she was right... I sounded to myself like a protoNazi -- I was indulging in a kind of Christian paranoia not dissimilar to the Jewish-paranoia that overtook Germany in the Hitler years. Unpleasant realization, to say the least.

We can work hard to keep out government from becoming a theocracy -- a goal I think we all agree on -- without turning into bigots.

[MaraJade]

234. Thank you Will!

We all needed this.

[randome]

241. You made four posts...

...on a topic that is supposedly of great interest to you.

Guess what, Mr. Pitt? No one CARES about your personal religion any more than anyone on this board cares about mine. That's as it should be.

From what I've seen on this board, when someone makes a negative comment about Christianity or Judaism or whatever, the comment is almost always about organized religion, not about an individual.

For you to suddenly jump up and say, "Hey! Stop talking about me that way!" is missing the point entirely, and, IMHO, betrays a need to be noticed.

Don't confuse the two topics: there is religion and there is WilliamPitt. They are separate to those of us looking from the outside.

[Hissyspit]

242. Here is my post on Christianity from someone's earlier thread

Very good thread, by the way...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=2902369

You are confusing form and content, too, by the way.

Edited on Thu Mar-24-05 10:25 PM by Hissyspit
The passion play may have been very moving, but it was a PLAY, a human-produced (thus subject to conflicting human biases and needs) artwork/cultural production, not documentary evidence of the existence of a god, God or gods, the truth of ressurrection, or proof that someone who once probably lived, will return again to live on Earth. That is the CONTENT. The form was the arrangement of that content/message, the music, the skills of the actors, how they presented events and emotions.

Form can be very moving and still have content of not much veracity or worth. Think of Leni Reifenstahl's documentaries of the Berlin Olympics and the Nazi rallies. Their FORM is amazing, innovative, aesthecally impressive and moving, but their CONTENT is disturbing; the values they celebrate disgusting and worthless. The play in these senses did not SHOW a loving God, at all. It showed a human concept of a loving God - a concept that could EASILY, given what we know about human perception, epistimology, and oncology, be completely wrong.

Notice how all I have discussed in my two posts is culturally designed to get you to BEHAVE in certain ways/to control your thoughts and actions. All human interaction and communication is about this to a certain extent, but think about how much you DID NOT KNOW previously and then how your behavior changed when you discovered additional truths kept from you (deliberately or not). So, then think about how much MORE there is that you do not know, much they way your sense of the world was 'correct' when you were 8 years old, but it is so very different from your sense of the world at 40 years old.

God cannot be proven in any empirical or scientific way, most likely. If he/she/it exists, he/she/it, as "creator" of all reality, is in control of your "proof," so he/she/it can stack the deck.

In other words, what others say they "know" about God is always questionable, so don't put too much stock in it. Your desire to believe is a manifestation of many things, a search for understanding of how things work, a need to make emotional connections with other human beings - all important things. But none of them PROVE that God exists or that anyone person knows anything at all about God - thus your feeling that it is all B.S.

My belief? It's pretty much B.S., all part of the interaction of biological/evolutionary/social processes and fuctions of our 'higher-functioning' brains.

[AngryAmish]

244. KKKristians should be mocked

[GoBlue]

246. I have a dream and a prayer...

that droves of people leave their churches, or mosques, or temples or synagogues to find the faith in their own true soul. But alas, in reality they find it less threatening to follow another road. Amen.

[mhr]

254. Well Will - I Am Offended That We Have To Discuss Religion At All

What you perceive as an insult I deliver as opinion aimed at the level of importance with which I take US practiced Christianity.

[Fovea]

255. all for critical analysis

Perhaps that needs to be a forum, or better,
a FAQ.

How to craft a semi lucid argument- 101.

Your point is taken. As a Wiccan, you have my sympathy.
On a personal level, I have deep problems with certain
soi-disant Christians.

You are not among that sorry assed lot, nor is your faith anything like the fugue of unchallengeable rationalizations for every base human urge they disgorge.

[bluestateguy]

259. Damn

I wish my posts could get 260 replies.

[mhr]

260. Start Writing Columns And Editorials And You Will Become An Instant

Celebrity, deserved or not!

It's the American way.

[ariellyn]

261. Somebody's got their thinking cap on...good for you

I wanted to say the very same things but you did it for me and better than I could. I, too, find lumping religion with fairy tales extremely insulting. I will say this, I had overlooked a lot of the insults because I'm all for free discussion. But it made me rethink my own beliefs and I've come out more firm a believer than ever. If I believe in fairytales so be it. I don't want to go through life believing there's nothing but tangibilities to explain this magnificent world of ours.

Thanks for broaching this topic in a non-inflammatory way.

On edit: I believe a lot of the inflammatory "fairy tale" posts are there to draw negative attention to DU by trolls.

[jdots]

262. people don't understand a critique is not just critical analysis

To critique someone elses beliefs you have to be aware of your own beliefs and critically analize them.

[WI_DEM]

264. Well written

and I agree with you.

[JVS]

273. Will, you're just plain wrong

"The coming of Easter has given rise to the annual barrage of nonsense..."

You forgot about Christmas