Apart from the mean old atheists at DU...

[trotsky]

(Which, one might point out, the most rude and insulting of whom aren't regulars here in R&T - that should tell you something...)

...where in the Democratic Party or the American "left" do believers feel that anti-religious rhetoric and attitudes are exhibited?

Please give some examples. If this phenomenon is real and as big of a thread to Democratic victories around the country as some would have us believe, there should be examples galore.

So, where are they?

[phantom power]

1. Hey, we're not mean! We're grumpy!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. the anti-religiouis meme in regards to Dems

comes, in the most part, from Karl Rove, I think. In the election of '04, our local Dems were combatting rumors that seemed to simply "appear"-perhaps they were heard in some of the local churches, I wouldn't know for sure-but I never heard or saw any local or state candidate here in AR say anything that was anti-religious. The Rove machine simply worked because of the repuke's unholy alliance with certain fundamentalist Christian preachers, I think.

[trotsky]

3. So, in other words,

people who blame atheists for scaring away Democrats might just be swallowing Rovian propaganda?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

17. Unless they have specific instances, yes

I won't say that there isn't an individual (atheist or otherwise) who says they are Democrat and is doing something designed to drive people away from the party, but I don't personally know of anyone who is.

[papau]

10. I agree, ayeshahaqqiqa -the vast majority of Dems are religious and

the small group of Dems that are not religious are 99 times out of a hundred tolerant.

Rove sells I am right, you are not only wrong but also stupid (a thought sometimes sold by some of our DU atheist posters) - and he found a buyer in the Fundi Christian world.

The media then looks at our roster of Democratic Party pundits - and notes that at least in that group many are not religious - and the media then sells the Democratic Party as anti-religious.

I believe the real enemy of the left is the same one we have had for years - namely a RW corporate owned and controlled media that puts "context" in their reports that almost always helps the GOP and screws Dems.

[unschooler]

63. Rove sells the "I'm right. You're EVIL" meme.

Rove sells I am right, you are not only wrong but also stupid.

I've never seen the right demonize Mike Newdow or even Hillary "the Methodist" Clinton as being stupid. Religious Reichers don't mind if you're dumb. They just hate you if you're the LIBERAL SPAWN OF SATAN!!! :scared:







on edit: fixed a typo

[hfojvt]

4. little organisation called

the ACLU. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Howard Dean, dubbing the Republicans the party of white Christians.

But I do not believe I have ever made such a claim - "that anti religious rhetoric is a threat to Democratic victories", but in the sense that DU is part of our group process of articulating a progressive vision and advancing it, I do not believe anti-religious rhetoric should be part of that.

[trotsky]

5. Hmm, last I checked, the ACLU...

http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16254res20050302.html

September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.

August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.

May 25, 2005: ACLU sues Wisconsin prison on behalf of a Muslim woman who was forced to remove her headscarf in front of male guards and prisoners.

February 2005: ACLU of Pennsylvania successfully defends the right of an African American Evangelical church to occupy a church building purchased in a predominantly white parish.

December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.

December 14, 2004: ACLU joins Pennsylvania parents in filing first-ever challenge to "Intelligent Design" instruction in public schools.

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.

November 12, 2004: ACLU of Georgia files a lawsuit on behalf of parents challenging evolution disclaimers in science textbooks.

November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.

July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.

June 9, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit.

etc. ad nauseum.

And Howard Dean's comment? How about you give the accurate quote:

"(Republicans are) a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party."

Is that anti-religious? Does Dr. Dean bash Christians or Christianity?

[SCantiGOP]

8. thanks, trotsky

Anyone who thinks the ACLU is anti-religion just doesn't get it. They are anti-state established religion.

[hfojvt]

15. the public perception

is that a) they are anti-Christian
and b) they are liberal affiliated

[trotsky]

23. And that public perception is 100% wrong.

Where do you think it comes from, then?

[lvx35]

78. I'm a person of faith and a big ACLU supporter.

ACLU is the best thing that ever happened to faith in this country if you ask me...They foster religious tolerance by helping keep the separation between church and state, which is a very good thing for religion...People think of keeping Pat Robertson out of the whitehouse which is fine, but I think of keeping Karl Rove out of the pulpit as well. :)

[ET Awful]

9. Dean's comment was simply pointing out that Republicans ARE

a white Christian party, as exhibited by their exclusion of non-white, non-Christian folks in most arenas.

It had nothing to with Dean or Democrats being anti-religious, and everything to do with the Republican party being too focused on one religion.

[hfojvt]

18. that is part of the point

being anti-religious is not as bad in this country as being anti-Christians. It is expected that liberals will respect Buddhism, Wicca, Islam, Nation of Islam, Zoroastrism, Jainism, Hinduism, etc., etc., at the same time as they disparage Christianity. Yet 75% of the public identifies as Christian, and that number is probably higher in the much disparaged 'red' states. It is exemplified by my friend from NY as she worked as a VISTA person in Wisconsin. She had respect for all cultures and religions and traditions EXCEPT midwestern American Christianity - they were ignorant bigoted hicks who deserved to be mocked.

However, that is not an attitude that most candidates will express publicly.

[ET Awful]

21. You're confusing defending other religions with bashing Christianity

and ignoring facts based on evidence in the process.

Pointing out that nobody but Christians are truly welcome in the Republican Party does NOT equate to bashing Christians, it equates to pointing out that Republicans are, as a general rule, biased against anything else.

Any attempt to spin it to mean otherwise is simply buying into right-wing talking points.

[hfojvt]

31. perhaps more conflating than confusing

but I did not make that claim. The perception is not that liberals are anti-religious, certainly not if the religion is Wicca. The perception is that they are anti-Christian. Therefore, showing that they, the ACLU, defends other religious, does not prove that they are not anti-Christian. I did not say that it proves they are anti-Christian, only that it does not prove that they are not.

And Dean did not say what you said he did, although that is perhaps what he meant, and maybe he explained it more later. Since, in this country, even people making $130,000 a year seem to think they are middle class, Dean should have said that only rich people are truly welcome in the Republican party. Otherwise he makes it sound like, I, as a white Christian, would be more welcome in the Republican party.

I know what Dean said, and I know how I took it. My main sources on this were threads on DU. I do not get cable TV nor listen to radio (although I did stream AAR for a while until I got tired of Randi.)

[ET Awful]

35. So the way you took it (someone who doesn't listen to radio or watch TV

so couldn't possibly have actually heard what he said) is the deciding factor?

Sorry, but people that actually HEAR the statements they are criticizing have a little more standing.

You said they were anti-Christian, not I, not the original poster. The original poster asked "...where in the Democratic Party or the American "left" do believers feel that anti-religious rhetoric and attitudes are exhibited?" Your response was "The ACLU".

Now you are trying to backtrack away from that.

You are attempting to take the bias that the Republican party shows in favor of white Christian males and use it to indicate that Dean somehow said something false.

How many black Muslim Republicans do you know?

I thought so.

[hfojvt]

47. what is wrong with a little back-tracking?

I admit that saying the ACLU is anti-religious was wrong, but I think that asking if Christians feel Democrats are anti-religious is the wrong question. The question that is going to concern the Christian voters is whether Democrats are anti-Christians.

Since Dean was quoted on DU, I am not sure what watching TV has to do with it. But I watch alot of TV. However, without cable I cannot watch O'Reilly or Tweety or Russert to get RNC talking points even if I wanted to.

Dean said plenty of false things there, but there's no need to re-hash them. Nice of you to add "males" to his quote too. And actually I know some Bangladesh graduate students who were pretty conservative. If they got PhDs and stayed in the US, they probably vote Republican. Or are you talking about Nation of Islam?

[ET Awful]

50. Except you MISQUOTED Dean, attempted to skew what he said,

misrepresented his statement, twisted the actions of the ACLU, and called it good.

[hfojvt]

57. misquoted smishquoted

sorry I could not remember the exact words. I hardly think that smacks of mendacity, and still think I got the gist of it. I never made a misrepresentation, just said how I, and perhaps other white Christians took what he said. I never twisted the actions of the ACLU either. I said that they are a source of the feeling that many people have that the left is anti-Christian. I misread the question, due to my own ethnocentricity, religion means Christianity from my vantage point, and I think that is the more relevant question if we are going to win elections.

[salvorhardin]

58. You've had the actual quote pointed out to you several times

And you refused to acknowledge it. You also did not acknowledge when I pointed out to you that the idea of the ACLU being anti-Christian is part of a set of conspiracy theories that dates back at least to the 1970s with Timothy LaHaye.

Author Sara Diamond in her book Spiritual Warfare: the Politics of the Christian Right calls Secular Humanism the "Boogey-Man" of right-wing fundamentalism. According to Diamond, "Among Christian Right leaders, the primary advocate of war on secular humanism has been Tim LaHaye, one of the founders of the Moral Majority and head of the American Coalition for Traditional Values." Diamond says that in the 1970's LaHaye developed "an elaborate theory on the humanist conspiracy, linking the ACLU, the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, Hollywood movie producers and even Unitarianism to the impending downfall of modern civilization. The solution, LaHaye argues, is for Christian moralists to seize control of political and ideological institutions."
http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9-03.html

It actually probably dates back to the late 1950s or early 1960s and the John Birch Society but I don't have any references that specifically mention it.

The big question is, after having your misperception corrected, will you still continue to believe these far right wing manufactured myths?

[hfojvt]

60. I never said it was my misperception

Like Wikipedia, I said it was a widely held perception. I remain just as ambivalent about the ACLU as I always have been.

my post #29 is not an acknowledgement?

"and my 'paraphrase' - "the Republicans the party of white Christians".

actual quote "It's pretty much a white Christian party"

I do not see alot of difference, except I may have turned it around, making it sound like all white Christians are Republicans vs. all Republicans being white Christians."

My reaction to it stays the same, although I acknowledged that there may be reasons, apart from what he said, that caused me to react that way (that I was reacting as much to the anti-white and anti-christian sentiment of DU and Michael Moore as I was reacting to Dean).

I did not respond to every post that responded to me. Close, but not quite. I like to believe that humanists and progressives have some sort of agenda that we are pushing forward with so I am not sure if LaHaye is making a total myth any more than I totally disagree with Hillary's "vast right-wing conspiracy". The ACLU and LaHaye are on opposite political sides but in my view he is probably more Republican and conservative than he is "Christian". Which side am I on if I can see merits and flaws on both sides?

[ET Awful]

70. So was it some other hfojvt that said

"as a white Christian I took Dean that way"?

[hfojvt]

75. that hfojvt of the past

was talking about Dean - that should be pretty obvious.
in the post you are responding to "my misperception" refers to the "misperception" about the ACLU which AFAIK I have never claimed as my own.

[trotsky]

37. ACLU is most definitely NOT anti-Christian.

Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141

ACLU of Pennsylvania Supports Congregation's Fight for Religious Freedom
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=9298&c=141

ACLU Files Lawsuit on Behalf of Ohio Catholic Firefighters Forced to Attend Protestant Church Service or Face Discipline
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=8144&c=141

ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142

ACLU sides with Rev. Falwell in court case
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10147&c=142

After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries
http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159

Preachers, ACLU are allies in Vegas
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/living/10394784.htm

Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of Baptist minister
http://www.iclu.org/news/news_article.asp?ID=97

ACLU Washington Defends Christian Preacher's Right to Free Speech
http://www.aclu-wa.org/Issues/freespeech/News-SpokTransit.html

ACLU of MA Defends Students Punished for Distributing Candy Canes with Religious Messages
http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=11876&c=159

ACLU of PA Files Discrimination Lawsuit Over Denial of Zoning Permit for African American Baptist Church
http://www.aclu.org/RacialEquality/RacialEquality.cfm?ID=11083&c=28

ACLU Supports Right of Iowa Students to Distribute Christian Literature at School
http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n071102b.html

ACLU Defends Church's Right to Run "Anti-Santa" Ads in Boston Subways
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=10206&c=42


So, are you ready to drop this completely discredited claim yet?

[hfojvt]

16. the bashing was implied by Dean

and my quote was not inaccurate. Incomplete, but not substantially so. The implication was that white people and christians are not welcome in the Democratic party.

Perhaps if you could show me a link on those types of stories about the ACLU in a newspaper or TV story. That is where public perception is going to come from. Also a long list proves nothing. For all I know I could find three seemingly anti Christian lawsuits for every pro Christian lawsuit. Two of those in your list are about Muslims, and wasn't your OP question about Christianity? And are these two somehow pro Christian?

December 14, 2004: ACLU joins Pennsylvania parents in filing first-ever challenge to "Intelligent Design" instruction in public schools.

November 12, 2004: ACLU of Georgia files a lawsuit on behalf of parents challenging evolution disclaimers in science textbooks.

[ET Awful]

22. So now objecting to dissolving the wall of separation between church

and state is anti-Christian?

I don't think so.

First, the lawsuit was against teaching "Intelligent Design" in a science class because it has no scientific evidence and thus is not science. Additionally, the argument put forth by the school board was that it was not religious in nature to teach "Intelligent Design" please decide which way you want it, you can't have both.

Second, the same applies to the Georgia case. A science class is exactly that, a science class. It uses known evidence to substantiate theories, it doesn't use two thousand year-old religious texts to disprove demonstrable fact.

A little clue for you - not wanting religion crammed down my throat does not mean I'm anti-religion, it means I don't want it crammed down my throat. If people want religion, they go to church, if they want science they go to science class.

[hfojvt]

27. I said that the two lawsuits

were not "pro Christian". I did not say they were anti Christian.

From the point of view of a fundy, they are having the religions of science, evolution and materialism crammed down their throats in public schools which they are forced to fund. That, however, is another topic.

But those two suits were part of a list intended to show that the ACLU is not anti-religious, and I do not think they belonged there.

[ET Awful]

28. You started out by saying the ACLU was anti-Christian, then followed

up by providing those cases.

[hfojvt]

32. no, those cases were from Trotsky's post #5

I said those two did not show ACLU to not be anti-Christian or even anti-religious.

[ET Awful]

34. Did you or did you not say that the ACLU was a source of anti-christian

rhetoric as a response to his original post? That's the real issue. They obviously are not.

[hfojvt]

48. Flashdance - what a feeling

the OP was about feeling
"where ... do believers feel that anti-religious rhetoric and attitudes are exhibited?"

Of course, I made it about Christianity rather than religion. I said that "believers" (not necessarily me, since I am a follower more than a believer) feel that the ACLU exhibits anti-Christian rhetoric and attitudes and they associate the ACLU with the Democratic party. It may be true that they do not, but it is far from obvious.

[ET Awful]

49. Far from obvious? I guess a list of cases defending religious freedom

that fills your entire screen isn't "obvious"?

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. They are there to show the ACLU is pro-religious freedom

and that includes not having a religious idea inserted into a science class. Religious freedom includes the freedom from having other people's religion presented to you as fact, by the state.

[trotsky]

24. There was no such implication whatsoever.

Especially when you look at the ACTUAL quote, not your paraphrase of it.

And since when was "Intelligent Design" a be-all, end-all indicator of who a Christian is? Plenty of Christians don't believe in "ID," or, more importantly, don't want it taught in a public school science class. You are ignorant or oblivious to the context of the case. Same with the evolution disclaimer. It's a church/state separation issue.

Here's some specific links for some of the cases.

http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20174prs20050920.html
(From this page: "There is a distinction between speech by a school and speech by individual students," said ACLU of New Jersey cooperating attorney Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath in New York City. "The Constitution protects a student's individual right to express herself, including the right to express herself religiously."

http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/19918prs20050804.html
(From this page: "Mr. Miller has a guaranteed right to stand on a street corner and proclaim his faith in God to all who pass by," said ACLU of New Mexico Executive Director Peter Simonson. "He wasn't harassing or intimidating anyone. He certainly should not have spent time under lock and key for such a minor incident.")

http://www.aclu.org//religion/gen/16374prs20041222.html
("In this country, people have a right to express their religious beliefs without fear of discrimination by the government," said ACLU of New Jersey Legal Director Ed Barocas. "Excluding people from jury pools based on their religious belief or expression violates the principles of freedom found in the Bill of Rights.")

I think that's more than enough to prove that the claim the ACLU is anti-religion is a load of right-wing horseshit. You would do well not to feed their propaganda.

[hfojvt]

29. as a white Christian I took Dean that way

although I was almost alone on DU. And I was an early supported of Dean before I switched to Clark.

and my 'paraphrase' - "the Republicans the party of white Christians".

actual quote "It's pretty much a white Christian party"

I do not see alot of difference, except I may have turned it around, making it sound like all white Christians are Republicans vs. all Republicans being white Christians. But the implication of what Dean said there was a) white Christians are not served nor welcome in the Democratic party (except as water carriers for other groups) and b) you will fit in better with the Republican party if you are a white Christian and c) pointing out that Republicans are mostly white Christians as if that is a bad thing implies that being a white Christian is a bad thing.

As such, it serves as a perfect example of what you were looking for, but not one that happens alot.

As far as the ACLU being anti-religious, I narrow that to the perception being that they are anti-Christian, but do not have time to search their site or news articles. If you google ACLU what stories come up, other than their site?

[trotsky]

30. So basically, you are blaming others for the way you interpreted something

If this is such a "perfect example," why didn't all the Christians on DU agree with you?

I gave you links to individual cases for the ACLU. Your claim that they are somehow "anti-Christian" has been completely demolished. Got anything else, or are you done now?

[hfojvt]

46. no, I am only guessing that other white Christians will feel the same way

about what Dean said.

I did not claim that the ACLU was anti-Christian. I only claimed that it was the perception that it is anti-Christian, and that your proof that it is not was insufficient. My claim that the ACLU is perceived to be anti-Christian is far from being demolished. Whether it is a true perception is another question which I still do not think you have proven conclusively. Three cases out of the thousands they pursue does not prove anything. You need to look at the big picture, not cherry-pick evidence. My own google search, however, has not really provided evidence to the contrary. Instead of news stories, google links me to fundy sites attacking the ACLU as being anti-Christian, and I am sure they are cherry picking their evidence too.

Wikipedia supports my contentions:

"The group "Stop the ACLU" ran a backronym contest <47>. The thirty entries variously implied that the ACLU was atheist, Communist, lesbian, aligned with Lucifer, or overly litigious. The most frequent assertion, made in a plurality of eleven entries, was that the union was anti-Christian.

Conservative Christian critics

At the grassroots level, the ACLU often involves itself in cases involving the separation of church and state. Therefore, some Christians, including many who may be considered conservative Christian, often take issue with its positions. Many in this community contend that the ACLU is part of an effort to remove all references to religion from American government."

[trotsky]

53. So what you're doing

is blaming the ACLU (and/or liberals, atheists, etc.) for how the right wing has lied about them.

Okey dokey. Thanks for playing.

[hfojvt]

61. Indeed

Shomani totanka obwa chi meye elo.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. You're buying right wing spin if you believe that

Here's the report:

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, unapologetic in the face of recent criticism that he has been too tough on his political opposition, said in San Francisco this week that Republicans are "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party."

"The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people," Dean said Monday, responding to a question about diversity during a forum with minority leaders and journalists. "We're more welcoming to different folks, because that's the type of people we are. But that's not enough. We do have to deliver on things: jobs and housing and business opportunities."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/07/MNdean07.TMP

He was asked about diversity. He said the Republicans aren't friendly to different people, bu the Democrats are. There is absolutely no implication of white Christians being unwelcome in the Democrats - when the typical Democratic candidate is a white Christian, how could they be?

Your paraphrase is incorrect - there is a significant difference between "the Republicans are the party of white Christians" and "It's pretty much a white Christian party". Yes, you did turn it around, and have remembered an completely false interpretation.

[hfojvt]

45. I am not buying any spin, as I said before

I came to my own conclusions without any input from Republican shills. If I had a star I could look up my posts I made at that time on DU. The same interpretation I have now.

He was being critical of the Republican party, which I do all the time myself, but as a criticism he said "it is mostly white Christians" implying that there is something wrong with that. Otherwise, how is it a criticism? (The Republican party is bad, it is mostly white Christians). In response to that a neutral white Christian is going to think "what is wrong with that? Is there something wrong with being white or Christian?)

Of course, I might have a tendency to think that way because of DU where posters apologize for being white and reading Moore's book "Stupid White men". It is only my guess that it does not play well in Peoria and that I did not care for it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. But since the rest of what he said at the time makes it clear

that he is criticising the way the Republicans aren't welcoming to people who aren't white Christians, you must have been reading a right wing report of it to think that he was criticising white Christians themselves. They were only telling you one part of it, to make Dean's words look bad.

I've done a lookup of the threads you commented in GD at the time:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3814704

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3820252

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3821078

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3840433

Note that in the last thread, you asked for some context in reply #74, and got it - one of the links being precisely what I linked to above - and yet you have still failed to take on board the replies to you. Also, in the 3rd thread, reply #49 makes exactly the same point about "the party" v. "a party" (though not in reply to you), and you carried on posting in that thread long after that. I think you got a biased first report, and never paid attention to the full context supplied by other reports.

[kwassa]

55. The problem is how the religious right-wing uses the word "Christian"

The right wing uses "Christian" to mean fellow fundamentalists who have a belief in the literal truth of the Bible. No one else is a true Christian to them. Conservative cultural beliefs are drawn into this mix as well, and defined by them as true Christian beliefs. To be anti-Christian simply means disagreeing with their fundamentalist religious and cultural agenda.

I often quote from this essay on religioustolerance.org which discusses the trouble of people identifying as Christian.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn.htm
quote:

"many Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants define "Christian" more narrowly to include only those persons with beliefs like their own. Or they might accept as a "Christian" anyone who has been "born again" regardless of their denomination. They might estimate that about 35% of the North American adult population are real Christians."

(jump)

"Different definitions on such a fundamental topic makes dialog and debate among Christian groups very difficult. It also makes estimating the number of Christians in the U.S. quite impossible. By some definitions, 75% of Americans are Christians; by other definitions, it is a small fraction of 1%."

[hfojvt]

65. well I was asking for context of the message

a context that would make it resonate positively with me, and other white Christians - not the context of the quote. The CNN article is gone or archived now, and the SFgate article did not make it look like a net plus.

Whether I read post #49 is another question, and forgot the important distinction between "a" and "the". Since I earlier made the point that Democrats are majority white Christian too I do not believe I have forgotten that there are white Christians in the Democratic party too.

Interesting that none of the threads give the context, but that context of the longer quote and who he was talking to are neither new to me, nor do they convince me that it was a good thing to say. I am not sure what I am supposed to get on board with a) that it was true, b) that it was helpful, or c) that it was harmless. It still seems both false and harmful to me, and I had two posts asking the same question that never got answered.

Of course, my own personal context is perhaps reaction to white bashing and Christian bashing on DU (and male bashing and red state bashing too), and in Michael Moore's book which I had read at the time, and Dean's comment (and DU's reaction) seem to fit in that context, and that is what I take on board.

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. Honestly, it sounds as though no-one can ever convince you

that the Democratic party doesn't hate white Christians - you've read so much here, ignored the statistics on the voters, and yet you're still determined to feel rejected. Here's another statistic for you - every single Democratic presidential candidate has been a white male Christian. Still feel rejected?

[hfojvt]

74. I thought I was talking about the merits, or lack thereof,

of Dean's statement in regard to white Christians. I do still think that statement was perceived by white Christians as being anti-Christian. That does not mean I believe one statement by Howard Dean proves that Democrats are anti-Christian any more than one statement (or ten) by the ACLU proves that they are not anti-Christian.

I do feel rejected though, because I voted for Jackson in the Wisconsin primary in 1988, and I hate it when my guy doesn't win. Plus I expected him to be the front runner in 1992 and instead this Clinton guy comes out of nowhere sounding economically like a Republican. It was a rejection of progressive economics and I still have not gotten over it.

[salvorhardin]

67. white bashing? on DU?

and Christian bashing? Next thing you know you'll be going for the trifecta and decrying all the male bashing on DU too. I'm sorry you're so persecuted.

[hfojvt]

73. Did I imply that I was persecuted?

I think my point was that I do not like bigotry, but you seem to be okay with it - if it is directed at whites, christians, or males or some combination. Or perhaps everybody, or every demographic, gets bashed alot here by one poster or another, and we all need to shrug it off.

I was not decrying it so much as pointing out that I have been reacting to it, and perhaps over-reacting to it and thus reading too much into what Dean said.

[salvorhardin]

38. You do realize that this idea of the ACLU as being anti-Christian

is part of a set of far-right conspiracy theories that date back to at least the early 1970s?

Author Sara Diamond in her book Spiritual Warfare: the Politics of the Christian Right calls Secular Humanism the "Boogey-Man" of right-wing fundamentalism. According to Diamond, "Among Christian Right leaders, the primary advocate of war on secular humanism has been Tim LaHaye, one of the founders of the Moral Majority and head of the American Coalition for Traditional Values." Diamond says that in the 1970's LaHaye developed "an elaborate theory on the humanist conspiracy, linking the ACLU, the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, Hollywood movie producers and even Unitarianism to the impending downfall of modern civilization. The solution, LaHaye argues, is for Christian moralists to seize control of political and ideological institutions."
http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9-03.html

[catabryna]

6. As a believer...

I don't see any anti-religious "rhetoric" from the "party" or the "left". All I perceive is that we are a pretty diverse group with lots of different opinions. Opinions don't equal rhetoric. The biggest problem that I see with many believers is that they have a difficult time accepting that the opinions of others may differ from theirs but don't seem to understand that there is nothing wrong with that. They take those differences of opinion as a personal afront and try to assign it to something more than it really is.

[trotsky]

7. Thanks, catabryna.

I appreciate hearing your opinion.

"we are a pretty diverse group with lots of different opinions"

Couldn't agree more.

[hfojvt]

19. when the difference of opinion

is expressed by someone who says that "people who believe in God are all insane" it does not seem like they are accepting the opinions of others either.

[Touchdown]

25. No different than the opinion that all gays should be stoned

to death, and unruly girls should be sold into slavery, among other beautiful passages. Your God wrote that down, you have at least one copy of it, whether you believe it was "divinely inspired" or not, and you expect TOLERANCE from us?

Should I also be friends with someone who has a well worn copy of The Turner Diaries as well?

[trotsky]

26. Great point.

There have been folks in this very forum state matter-of-factly, that I as an atheist will burn in hell forever, because I have made a "choice" to turn away from their god.

They don't scare me away from the Democratic party, so why is the reverse such a cause for alarm? Is the average Christian's "faith" in liberal and progressive ideals weaker than the average atheist's?

[hfojvt]

44. yes, Christians, especially liberal ones,

voice those opinions all the time, don't they? Whether I expect tolerance or not, the person I responded to suggested that Christians are often intolerant of other's opinions. As I pointed out, and you so ably demonstrated, non Christians can be just as intolerant of other people's religious beliefs.

[Touchdown]

52. Pointing out double standards is not intolerance.

Not buying your argument one bit. Backlash and suspicion of open hostility on the part of voiceferous Christians, is not a tit for tat proposition. We gay people have reason, good reason to be suspicious of any olive branch presented by self proclaimed defenders of the faith. This is not intolerance, but caution of being bitten one too many times.

Try your argument on the more gullible.

And yes, I have had many a talk with liberal Christians that disapprove of homosexuality, and do believe it is a sin. They might not use it as a bludgeon for political gain, but the opinion is still there, and it's painful.

[hfojvt]

62. I missed the double standard somehow

Kneejerk and unrelenting backlash sounds like intolerance to me. So, in your view a white guy who sees some black people stealing on several occasions is justified in being racist?
Whatever reasons people may think they have for their intolerance or hatred does not change the existence of that intolerance. Read my signature quote from the atheist Isaac Asimov who died of AIDS.

[Touchdown]

69. You like to make shit up about people, don't you?

40 years of living in your world, and knowing that I will never fit in unless I conform to arbitrary behavioral standards, is kneejerk? Whatever you say.:eyes:

In my view? You made a non-sequitur, and put words in my mouth. Two very big wrongs there. No, I don't think that, unless those some black people were indoctrinated from childhood to steal, and they have leather bound books in their houses to remind them of their lot in life. Then you can make comparisons.

I have no idea what your saying in that loopy third sentence, there. I have no intolerance for Christians. I only have a short fuse for those who think their being persecuted by the left.

Do you know who Paul Weyrick or RJ Rushdoony are, and what they're famous for? If not, you've got no place to bitch at liberals, since you chose to be clueless about what's really going on.

[hfojvt]

72. I made something up about you?

By making an analogy and posing it as a question? You seemed to say that you have a prejudice against Christians because you have been burned too many times. I am not making that up if that is what I understand you to be saying.

In your initial post, you asked rhetorically if I could expect tolerance from you (with an implied answer of 'hell no'), and now you claim that you are not intolerant.

You have 40 years of living in MY world?

So it's my world, and yet I am clueless as to what's really going on in "my" world. One thing I do know about what's going on, is that I do not fit in very well, unless I am supposed to be the world's doormat or spitoon (and I am not talking about the left or this board in that regard).

Did I say or imply that I was being persecuted by the left? Are you putting words in my mouth? I cannot believe I would have said that.

[Touchdown]

76. You have a jaundiced eye.

I have no prejudice against Christians. I am one myself. What suspicion I have is when one such as you scream victimhood where none are needed. I know that it's part and parcel for being a Christian, that persecution belief, but I don't believe it exists. Here at DU, or anywhere else in America. It's not prejudice to take issue with your self congratulatory martyrdom.

That's true, I did ask a rhetorical question, but it was to point out your double standards, not a display of what I really feel. Words mean ]many things.

I grew up Christian, went to Methodist, Catholic, and Pentacostal denominations throughout life. One constant in them all is that gay people are destined for Hell, and to warn us, Hell must be created for us on Earth. Christianity is everywhere in this country. There is no way to get away from it. It's even on our money...so yes, if you want to talk "shoving lifestyles down other's throats", I live daily in your world.

Did you find out who Paul Weyrich and RJ Rushdoony are? The answer to your clueless and doormat question is with them.

Spitoon? Yes, you're soooo put upon. Some atheist questions your faith and sanity, and that is truly beyond the pale (and if that's not being persecuted by "the secular left", then no words can be put in your enigmatic mouth). Matthew Sheppard should have gone through such pain, the selfish prick. If he only saw your problems and realized that "tolerance goes both ways". :eyes:

[catabryna]

36. I'm not sure how this ended up

under my post.

But, I find that I have no problem with athiests' thoughts about my beliefs; it is just an opinion after all; I just blow it off. I've known athiests all my life and it always seems that when each person realizes the other is sincere, any desire to engage in discussions about it one way or another seems to cease and mutual respect rules the day. Religious belief or lack thereof are not cornerstones of my relationships. Gawd, my life would certainly lack a lot of people I love if I required them to be completely likeminded! And that goes to both ends of the spectrum. I have a lot of friends that I consider to be a bit overboard on the religious bandwagon. Fortunately, none of them are hateful; then again, if they were, they wouldn't have become my friends in the first place.

[On the Road]

11. Democratic Politicians are Only Part of It

Support for separation of church and state and social issues like gay marriage do come from the Democratic side of the house (even though Democratic politicians often run away from those issues). Much of the perception is from liberal Hollywood (which I'm glad IS liberal), and from ordinary Democrats like you and me.

In TV, movies, and related media, a lot of it has to do with the depiction of Christians. Christians are rarely portrayed sympathetically (with the frequent exception of Catholics for some reason). In addition, practices which are contrary to Christianity are depicted as normal, particularly sex out of wedlock. Anyone uncomfortable with that is depicted as repressed, conflicted, or hypocritical.

The contrast is easy to see by looking at how different the media was 40-50 years ago. Keep in mind that that was not an aberration -- what's unusual is the lack of censorship today.

The other avenue by which Democrats get tarred with anti-religious sentiments is from everyday people. With a few exceptions such as Jimmy Carter and a lot of black churches, the Republican party has made itself friendly to Christian attitudes and positions. The Democratic party has been a refuge for a whole host of people who deviate from or dislike the church for various reasons. Posting on DU may seem invisible to society at large, but these things leak out -- from call-in shows, relatives, office discussions, cocktail parties, and so forth. Just as DUers talk about unpleasant experiences with freepers, Republicans talk about unpleasant experiences with liberals.

Some of this is unavoidable without compromising core issues. What frustrates me is the number of Democrats who are completely clueless and do more harm than good.

[trotsky]

12. So you're blaming "Hollywood," the media, etc. for some of it.

Which I can understand, except for them not being run by atheists in any way, shape, or form. This country is majority Christian, and a whole lot of those Christians are big fat hypocrites. America loves sensationalism, and seeing hypocrites get their comeuppance. "The media" only produces what sells, and apparently there's a pretty big audience out there lapping it up. So either Christian-hating atheists are actually a huge majority with purchasing power, or there's a whole lot of Christians who are A-OK with those presentations.

I strongly disagree with you about the influence of DU, how its posts "leak out" - because if you've ever had the misfortune to wander over to FreeRepublic, entire threads composed of posts that would alienate the vast majority of American voters are routine, and that doesn't seem to have hurt the Republican party one bit. In fact, there are even rabid Republican atheists who post negative comments about religion and religionists there, and yet is that "leaking out"?

[papau]

14. Wish""The media" only produces what sells"was true - but your Hypocrites

point is well taken.

Such Hypocrites stories do indeed "sell" - which makes it always a surprise to me when a GOP hypocrites story is killed by the media - or at least the context that makes it a hypocrite story is left out.

As to religion in the media I find few outlets that even cover religion - and I suspect folks over-react to the portion of the op-ed that is atheist pundits who while giving us their wisdom on some non-religious topic slip in a few nasty spins about religion.

As to DU's influence - I wish it were greater - but at its current level of influence the existence of "mean and nasty" atheist posts more or less only affects how the 86,000 on DU are made to feel about the Democratic Party - I see no impact on the general public view of the Democratic Party that can be attributed to one or more DU posts - be they atheist, religious, or other.

[hfojvt]

20. the Churches are very upper middle class too

"the Republican party has made itself friendly to Christian attitudes and positions."

So what should be "Christian attitudes and positions" such as concern for the poor and sick, and opposition to war get pushed aside in favor of "abortion, homosexuality, evolution, and rabid nationalism". Fundies have been working to take over the churches just as they have been working to take over the Republican party and the country, or maybe they just pushed the socialists (and the social gospel) back after WWI.

[oneold1-4u]

13. The "ugly " neo-con fundies-

with all their ignorance, need to become aware that they are outnumbered by Islam in this country and in the world! They need to change their tune to keep the greatest number of Christians in their column! Their shunning of all other Christians will take Christ to the knee of Islam.

[manic expression]

33. Where?

Here. That's about it, for me at least. Most Democrats are religious, and most atheists in the Democratic party don't have an intolerant bone in their body. You'd be hard-pressed to find anti-religious rhetoric in the political circles in my area, especially in the Democratic party.

Again, that's just me, and I have no idea what others have seen or heard.

[Silent3]

39. Christ....

...DU is one of the few places where atheists and agnostics have a loud and clear voice. We're practically invisible elsewhere. The influence of atheists in Democratic politics is more right-wing propaganda than left-wing reality. Then again, from a rabid Bush Republican point of view, liberal Christians might as well be atheists -- not much difference as far as they're concerned.

I only wish there were more voices speaking out against religion. I'm NOT talking about people speaking against the right of anyone to believe as they wish, mind you, nor promoting civil intolerance. What I want is for atheists to speak their minds, loudly and clearly, about how they feel about religion and religious beliefs, using the same force and strength and array of rhetorical tools we use to discuss nearly everything else -- including not only dry, high-minded debate, but satire and laughter and scorn in just measure too, the same way any of us might go after political views we disagree with.

If we grant religion special sanctuary from certain types of criticism in the marketplace of ideas, religion gains the upper hand in the marketplace of ideas. Why on earth should atheists and agnostics be complicitous in that? Non-believers most certainly aren't cut any slack in return.

I dream of a day when the US is more like Europe when it comes to religion, when there'd be a ghost of a chance for a non-believer to become President or to win other high offices. My dream is not going to be achieved by atheists and agnostics remaining politely non-offensive and always providing believer's their desired "whatever works for you is good" safety zone.

Tactically speaking, of course, I'd hope that this can happen in such a way as to not imbalance things in favor of Republicans in the meantime.

[YankeyMCC]

42. Thank you

for such a well worded (hmmm is that grammatically correct? :) ) post.

:toast:

[Orangeone]

43. I prefer freedom of religion

not the aggressively secular societies of Europe. Just because they're secular doesn't mean that they are very tolerant or enlightened.

[trotsky]

54. As compared to what, exactly?

The "tolerant and enlightened" United States, where gays are beaten for being gay, intellectuals tarred for being too smart (Al Gore, for example), etc.?

[Silent3]

56. A secular society is necessary...

...for freedom of religion -- not a guarantee of freedom of religion, mind you, but a necessary precondition. Once a particular religion starts to have too much influence, all of the other belief systems are less free.

What I want is a society which is tolerant of religion and religious practice, but which doesn't go out of its way to be especially supportive of religion, as in pushing this general wishy-washy idea that some religion is better than no religion at all. "Have some faith! It's good for you!" Even if, as some studies show, there might be some health/stress-reduction benefits to religious belief, believing in something just because of some extraneous pay-off seems degrading to the concept of faith -- you should believe in something because it's believable, because it's worthy of belief, not because of side effect benefit.

[varkam]

71. But it does mean...

that they generally have lower rates of: infant mortality, teenage pregnancy, STD transmission, abortions and homicides - according to the data.

[catmother]

59. i would like to know who started the phrase "godless liberals"

[unschooler]

64. Somebody on the Reagan campaign, who probably worked for

Joe McCarthy's campaign against "godless communists"?

[zonmoy]

68. I for one consider myself a maltheist

beleifnet definition of maltheism

[JerseygirlCT]

77. It comes from a Democratic conviction that there is

actually a separation of church and state. And that religion is best left to the individual.

Horrible thoughts, aren't they? (that was sarcasm, btw).

This is then used by the right to decide that the American left is against religion. They've successfully exploited this canard for quite a while now.

Which is why some of us who are religious think it would be a good thing for Democrats to get comfortable with the subject. We need to more forcefully give our take on the role that people of faith can play in our country and in our party. We need to point out the many, many shared values that ought to exist between people claiming to believe in God and love and justice and those of the Democratic party.

Sort of ignoring the topic has ceded the topic to the nasties on the far right. I really don't think it harms atheists at all to have religious Dems get more comfortable talking about their faith. And to continue to educate the uneducated about just how the establishment cause works to safeguard our rights to religion as well as an atheist's rights.