Would everyone just CHILL OUT on Truth Out and Raw Story?

[johnaries]

First of all, STOP trying to connect them. They are two separate news agencies, with different reporters and different sources. Yes, both of them have employees that are also members of DU, but that is a tribute to the attraction and influence of DU. These DU members are valuable members of DU, and it would be a shame if we lost these valuable DU assets and their contributions.

Second, as I pointed out in a separate thread regarding the loss of another valuable DU'er liveoaktx, there is a huge difference between constructive criticism and flame bait. I am seeing a lot of flame bait regarding both Raw Story and Truth Out. I am NOT seeing any criticism that could be construed as "constructive".

Now, I appreciate the posts and links to other sources which offer information which may contradict any previous post or thread in DU. We need to be informed.

However, what I DON'T appreciate is when some article clearly says "sometime next week" or "After Tuesday" and then when Monday or Tuesday rolls around and people start proclaiming "it was a lie"! simply because it hasn't happened, yet. Even though we were warned it probably wouldn't happen when we wanted it to happen.

And, yes, sometimes the best reporters get it wrong. Karl Rover's favorite tactic is to discredit a person's entire career of accurate reporting based on a single small technicality. Witness Richard Clarke. Witness Dan Rather. etc., etc.

Are we going to fall victim to Rover's tactics? Are we going to be Rover's pawns? Are we going to be Rover's minions? Yes, skepticism is good. But don't be skeptical to the point that you fall for Rover's tactics, and become a perpetrator of them.

CHILL OUT! A little common sense, please? "After Monday" doesn't mean Tuesday. "After Tuesday" doesn't mean Wednesday. It means exactly what it says - "AFTER".

[Rex_Goodheart]

1. Raw Story can kiss my ass...

for publishing their anti-atheist editorial.

[The Straight Story]

3. I suppose I could say the same about many here on DU

for attacking my ideas/faiths/beliefs/ideologies.

Either we can take an attack and respond to it with an intelligent rebuttal, or we can run away cursing at those who would hurt our feelings.

Some christians can suck, but there are many more who do a lot of good for others. But focusing on the good is rarely a trait I have found in some of these threads. Myself included - it is easier to be a hypocrite than to live within the walls we mentally build for others.

Pratice what we preach - and that is something god kept slapping the israelites with, and what Jesus pounded the priests with.

[Rex_Goodheart]

4. It's one thing to have disagreements with other posters...

on a message forum. But when a site makes it official policy to trash some of its readers then that site no longer deserves those readers.

[johnaries]

5. And how was it "Official Policy?" It was an editorial piece.

It was an opinion piece.

Look, I'm technically an agnostic. You are not helping the case for atheism or agnosticism. The basic premise of the piece is correct - there are "fanatics" in every aspect of theological debate.

When you make statements like this, you are hurting your position - not helping it.

[The Straight Story]

6. I can understand and respect that

but I would also say when a site allows the trashing of one group on a regular basis it can be seen in a similar light.

DU is pretty open - unless you want to challenge the holocaust, promote racism, and so on - so some may take it as official policy that trashing a belief you hold dear is ok; while wondering why some beliefs are off the table to open discussion.

Out of respect I would try not to create a whole post about how bad atheists suck (though with enough beer and being ticked off I might be so stupid) because I think it is wrong to alienate people who are really on my side on the big issues in life. Inside a thread is a different story.

If rawstory spoke out about how evil christians (or islam, jews, etc) were would you still feel the same? Or do you only wish to protect a group you have an interest in (not attacking you, you're a fine poster - just asking a question I think is relevant).

For the record - atheists are fine people, but like all folks who label themselves there will be bad apples (and it is worse when people adopt labels for convienence to sway others - like hitler did, that man was no christian by any stretch.)

[Mr_Spock]

12. Good point about the "South Park" phenomenon

It was fine when South Park poked fun at every other organized religion, but when they took on "Chef's" particular group, he went apeshit and quit. That was extremely childish of Hayes IMHO.

[0007]

15. How true.

[The Straight Story]

16. Do a search on RawStory about christians:

Or how about searching google for 'christians' and DU?
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=christians+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com&btnG=Google+Search

Here is the google search of same on rawstory:
http://www.google.com/search?hs=yAV&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&q=christians+site%3Arawstory.com&btnG=Search

Why are we doing so much infighting?

We don't need bush and crew to divide us - we do a good enough job ourselves.

[Lib Grrrrl]

8. Pardon Me For Saying So, But....

if you can let an opinion piece hurt your feelings so badly, then I wonder how strong your faith in your athiesm is??

Are you afraid you might be wrong...that there IS a higher power?

I don't know the answer...only what I have faith in. I'm a Unitarian Universalist, and I respect all people's individual spiritual paths, as is our tradition.

My point is...don't let a few assholes ruin your day, and send you out to tear at people who are our friends! Eyes on the prize. These fuckers want to divide and conquer. We can't let them.

Hang in there, be strong...and don't let someone's opinion fuck up your day.

Remember, always, that opinions are like assholes...everyone has one, and they all stink.

Chill. You don't believe in a higher power? Great. I respect that belief and your right to hold it.

But don't let the forces of evil use that to turn you against your own.

[johnaries]

11. "standing ovation"

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Mr_Spock]

9. Goo goo gaga

WTF does this little childish outburst have to do with the premise of this post?

:eyes:

I hope you were being sarcastic :rofl:

[Bill McBlueState]

19. right on

I have no patience for the idea that simply lacking a belief in magical beings makes one a "whackjob."

[The Straight Story]

2. Cynism is the drug of the angry who look for the worst

Whether it be blasting christians, smokers, truthout, rawstory, etc and so on - some people want to find the negative and nuture it in any way possible.

Critcism is one thing, and often leads to growth - when done in a way by interested parties aiming for a common goal. We tweak the engine to get it to run better - whereas some want simply to complain it does not run how they want all the time.

We ain't shutting the engine off, and it won't always perform how we want, and once that fact is accepted we can move towards realizing a better end result - and that it will take time.

[johnaries]

7. Well said. Thank you! nt

[The Straight Story]

10. Sadly, it has a downturn for us as well

During part of the clinton years (during Okie city and waco) I worked for a gun reloading company and hung out around a lot of milita folks. It did not matter what clinton did - it was wrong and evil (of course, they did not like govt in general, so they don't spare bush in their anger).

democrats (and I am talking mainly DU democrats) refuse to ever find one positive thing if it makes the opposition for one second look better. And freeptards are the same when it comes to dems. It starts to look all about absolute hate instead of finding a clear path in a bi-partisan way.

Take terrorism as an example, and iraq really. Clinton said similar things that bush has said on these things (as did gore - who said that saddam must go) - from they had wmd to they had ties to terrorism. Instead of finding out more about why our govt (under 2 different administrations) felt these things were real we focus on the admin we hate. TO ME doing so is not helping solve the deeper problems, but it does make us feel our feelings towards bush are justified (and, well they are).

The problem is deeper than dem vs rethug. It goes to who we are willing to give a pass - and to me we should not give any of them a pass. Dems need us to be just as vigilant in the future of them as we are with bush. If we get a dem congress and president I hope we work equally as hard to get any of them out of office if they suck. Will we? Or are we so blind to the dem faith that sinners only have R's after their names?

[johnaries]

13. You went off-topic (non-sequitor argument), but...

you raise a point that is a "sore spot" with me.

We put Saddam in power, and we supplied him with WMD's.
We put the Shah of Iran in power and supported him despite his Human Rights violations - which led to the Iranian Revolution.
etc., etc., etc.

Yet, when anyone tires to point out these failures of past American Policy in an effort to improve future policy, we are automatically branded as "Blame America First".

Hey, what's wrong with admitting that we screwed up? Unless we plan to continue screwing up....

[The Straight Story]

14. To me the broader point is

We attack our own side at times if they attack us. But we expect other sides (ie other views in the big tent) not to attack us while we attack them.

Raw story may have had a valid point - but it is not wanting to be heard because it offends. Well, I get offended when my belief is called a 'fairy tale' and so on but I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I know some on the left despise christians, I wish they wouldn't but they do. But I still value them as members of our party - and know in the end they want what is best for us all.

[johnaries]

18. Yes, we do often "attack". When we should just discuss.

Discussion is productive. But it seems that we can no longer discuss - just attack and counter-attack. That is counter-productive.

I'll admit that I often have "anti-christian" sentiments. In my defense, I will say that in MY experience (which is obviously different from anyone else's experience) the people and leaders claiming to be Christians were the least christ-like.

Please forgive me, I have a certain amount of animosity towards christianity because of the hypocrites that tried to control me using christianity.

OTOH, I have read Jesus' teachings. I am reminded of Ghandi when he said "I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are nothing like your Christ"

I have nothing against the teachings of Christ. I have big problems with hypocrites who select and choose those teachings to further their own selfish agendas.

And that pretty much sums up my opinion of eery so-called Christian church I have been attended in my lifetime.

I was just waiting for Jesus to show up and drive the money-changers out. I'm still waiting.

[The Straight Story]

21. When I was down and out - and atheist -

It was christian churches who helped me out (Salvation Army, Lutherans too) and not anyone else.

Was there an atheist group in my town offering to assist me in my times of needs in the 90's? Nope.

I might (and did a lot) disagree over things relating to the faith - but I kept on seeing one consistent theme - help the poor. From my lutheran church to the baptist church to the pentecostal church I once went to they were all working hard to help those in dire need.

They weren't perfect - but they were there helping out. When I needed food and gifts for my boys at christmas - they were the ones helping me out. And NO they did not preach to me or try to convert me, they just helped.

Each year now I work with my engineers to raise money to help out folks in the adopt-a-family program. I don't check their beliefs at the door, nor do my guys. We just help out. Most are christian, one is jewish. We don't discuss our faith or theirs - we just get it done for those that need it.

As far as the christian church goes - read Revelation. 7 letters. Jesus was not always saying nice things about his own church - nor was Paul. There are some who follow, and some that don't. Which we choose to focus on says a lot about us.

[Bill McBlueState]

20. a good example

of "finding the negative and nurturing it in any way possible" was to run an editorial smearing atheists.

But I'm just a whackjob.

[The Straight Story]

22. You are no whackjob

You are a person who does not like to have your ideals and beliefs blasted. Welcome to the club.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. Hear Hear And Absofuckinglutely! Agree With That Sentiment Completely.

I'm all for open minded questioning and constructive criticism, but I agree the majority of the putdowns I've seen have been far more bitter and unproductive in tone than sincere. That's my take on it.

If the tone was sincere, I'd expect something along the lines of "hey, be patient, this isn't verified yet and we don't want to put the cart before the horse. It very well may be true, but let's wait this one out". See, I would consider that to be rational and sincere. But there's no need to literally trash the hell out of Jason in the process. To me that shows a complete lack of sincerity and lack of being genuine, and shows true colors. Question, yes, no problem. Smear and aim to destroy and belittle? Pathetic.