Good news: Clergy march in a funeral procession to protest health care repeal

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

For the third week in a row, clergy showed up on Capitol Hill to protest Senate action on health care.
As in past weeks, some were arrested.
But on this Tuesday (July 25), the group ratcheted up the drama by marching to the Capitol, carrying a cardboard coffin and poster-sized death certificates for those who would lose health insurance.

To read more:

http://religionnews.com/2017/07/25/clergy-march-in-a-funeral-procession-to-protest-health-care-repeal/

I realize that by captioning this "good news" I am revealing my own opinion of the news. My labelling this as "good news" is merely a personal observation. Yours may differ and I respect that difference.

I say "good news" because I believe that this is yet another instance of people of faith working for social justice for all.

[guillaumeb]

1. More "good news".

The group consisted of priests, pastors, rabbis and members representing religious organizations such as the Presbyterian Church USA and Faith in Public Life. 

[trotsky]

2. Others might classify this as bad news.

After all, it is conservative religious views helping to drive the fight AGAINST the ACA. Bad news that we have to fight against this.

But you go right on pretending that you are DU's forum police, and you and you alone get to decide whether someone is posting content that meets your approval, in the right ratio. Others will continue to laugh at you.

[guillaumeb]

3. Is this your version of humor?

If so, it needs work.

[trotsky]

4. Nope, quite serious.

Some people are unable to see that religion does indeed motivate all types of behavior, and thus get quite upset when others post things showing a side of religion they don't like to admit exists. Or simultaneously want religion to hold a special privileged position in dialog, but at the same time be on par with ordinary human institutions/ideas like "nationalism" or "patriotism." Silly, really. But it's fun to laugh at such people, that's for sure.

[guillaumeb]

9. I post on the good and the bad. You prefer to focus on the bad.

The rest of your post is your standard brand of dialogue and needs no response.

[trotsky]

10. For the record, you STILL haven't explained why you and you alone...

get to define "good" and "bad."

[guillaumeb]

11. Also for the record, only you made this claim for me.

So no, I cannot explain why you made this completely false claim about me. I leave that bit of behavioral analysis up to you.

This reminds me off your earlier claims, (some months ago), that I was insisting on defining Christianity. I called you on that and you have still not provided any proof for that earlier false claim.

I am beginning to detect a pattern.

[trotsky]

12. You're the one classifying things as "good" or "bad" news, and giving no reasons.

You're the one judging others based on some kind of scorecard on how many of their posts are "good" news and how many are "bad" news.

Both of those statements are 100% true.

As is your tendency to then start with the personal attacks once you are losing the argument.

[guillaumeb]

13. I am titling my posts, as are you and others.

One non-theist titled a post as good news when the post dealt with a loss of life. Was that a deliberate misclassification, calling an article dealing with riots and death good news?My titling is editorializing, or giving my own opinion, or expressing my own opinion.

And you are the one who falsely claimed that I was defining what is good and bad when a reading of my posts and my accompanying editorial comments makes it quite clear that I am defining what I find to be good and bad.

[trotsky]

14. Again, your definitions of "good" and "bad" are different than others might use.

Why can't you accept that? Why are you forcing everyone else to use your definitions, and making judgments on others?

[guillaumeb]

15. As any reading of my last statement would reveal,

you are arguing a point that I made much earlier.

Why do you insist on saying that I am making points that I clearly am not making?

[trotsky]

16. The part you're not connecting is how you are judging others...

and trying to cast them in a negative light simply because they aren't posting what YOU want to see posted - or simply aren't posting in the ratio that YOU deem is acceptable.

Until and unless you understand this, and stop judging others, your experience on DU will continue to be a struggle.

[guillaumeb]

17. And your labelling of things as "good news" or "bad news" is also judgement.

Until and unless you understand this, and stop judging others, your experience at DU will also be filled with struggle.

I understand your viewpoint about religion, and what seems to be a need to focus exclusively on the negative, but you must realize that the Religion forum is also a place for discussion of the positive aspects of belief and religion.

[trotsky]

18. I really didn't think I needed to say this, but...

*my* labeling was meant to try and get you to understand the point.

You don't get to judge others. So stop it. YOU are judging what is "negative" or "positive" and it needs to stop, because you proceed to judge people instead of news.

[guillaumeb]

19. An intereresting revelation.

You might want to think about the format here at DU, and recognize that editorial comments are a part of many posts here. And many of those editorial comments are, in fact, judgments of others. A reading outside of the confines of the Religion group will reveal many people at DU making value judgments about people and things.

And you obviously do not recognize how very often your own posts are judgmental of people and institutions or you would not lecture anyone about judging others.

[trotsky]

20. You seriously don't understand how your judgments are different?

When you accuse others of ulterior motives, make your snide remarks, and try to undermine their right to speak their minds no matter if it pleases you or not? All in the defense of precious, precious religion which in your mind is really not ever truly at fault for anything bad?

Long ago you really escalated this acrimony between us by making a patently false accusation about my positions on a particular subject. You have consistently and steadfastly refused to retract your false statement and apologize, even when I proved you were wrong using direct quotes. You have also declared that you know better than atheists what atheism is really about. As a result, I have adjusted my responses to you accordingly.

And I'll lecture religious bigots as long as like - you can't stop me. When people make posts admiring and/or defending conservative Christians who oppose LGBT equality and reproductive rights, fuck yes I'm judging them. You'll just have to deal with that. And if your only way to react is not to defend those people or their religion but attack those who are criticizing them, then guess what - you'll be in the line of fire.

[guillaumeb]

24. Oh no, I do understand how you apparently regard your own pronouncements.

As to the rest of your post, it is a repeat of older arguments and claims that you made. You have your own opinion as to who is the aggressor and who is the victor.

[trotsky]

27. I do not (and will never) apologize for being aggressive toward religious bigotry.

My claims are repeated because they are true. I am sorry it bothers you so much, but I'm not going to stop.

[guillaumeb]

30. Ypu obviously believe that your many claims are true.

That does not make them true. And no, I am quite certain you will not stop working toward your goal.

[trotsky]

32. You obviously believe my claims are false, but that doesn't make them false.

I am perfectly content to let the readers in this group decide for themselves.

I'm not the person who has posted articles praising right-wing religious figures.

I'm not the person who tries to deflect criticism of child abuse in religious groups by pointing to abuse that happens elsewhere.

I'm not the person who insists that others must post a certain ratio of content in this group according to your personal judgment, lest they be accused of having ulterior motives and an agenda.

That's all you.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. Serious, and it IS bad news. These people think that this disagreement is the purview of faith.

They can't set aside their religious nonsense long enough to just sit down and be adults and address the problem REGARDLESS of faith.
Basically they are perpetuating the conflict, and being the minority among the religious people, they aren't going to win either.

It's also disappointing that you're so damn excited to find a viewpoint among them that you happen to agree with, that you don't see the big picture.

This battlefield ONLY EXISTS in the headspace of the religious combatants that think it is a thing.

[guillaumeb]

7. Well, your opinion of faith is evident, as is your opinion of your ower of analysis.

What is disappointing is to find those who are so eager to attack and criticize viewpoints different from their own that they cannot see that they have allies in many places. And this applies to theists and non-theists.

My view is that you are so focused on looking through your own narrow lens that you cannot see why this is good news.

[Act_of_Reparation]

21. People who use faith to justify public policy are not our allies.

What about that confuses you?

[trotsky]

22. And continuing to reinforce faith as a legitimate policy justification -

EVEN IF IT AGREES WITH OUR PLATFORM - only perpetuates the problem of mixing religion & politics and continues to enable the right wing.

Pity so many liberal believers don't understand this. I don't want to live under a theocracy, whether it's a conservative or a liberal one.

[guillaumeb]

25. Not confusion on my part, as my response indicated.

But rather a rejection of the policy of rejecting allies who are not to your liking. You talk of people using faith to justify policy, but all of us use our beliefs to justify our decisions on what policies to support.

[Act_of_Reparation]

29. The only thing indicated by your response is confusion in the extreme.

Where do I start?

Perhaps with your failure to consider what the word "ally" really means? You see, the word necessarily implies a long-term, stable working relationship between consistently reliable partners united by common goals or ideals. No lasting, effective alliance has ever been built on earth so shallow as "we both want people to have medical insurance". What kind of insurance are we talking about? Is it universal? Is it administered by the government or private business? Does it cover contraception? Abortion? Assisted Suicide? Ask any African American what it is like to have white "allies" who generally oppose racism but because of their privilege do not see specific problems as problems and as a result fail to support meaningful solutions. Details matter.

Perhaps with your inability to empathize with those outside your immediate peer group? I am an atheist. I am a humanist. I believe a secular society -- one in which policy is based on public need and designed in accordance with empirical evidence -- is in every conceivable way superior to a system in which policy is informed by religious belief. There are several reasons I cannot ally with theocrats. First and foremost, they support theocracy, to which I am fundamentally opposed. Second, they are unreliable. I know, for instance, another secularist will never enlist my support for a policy based on superstition. The same can't be said for theocrats. If they cannot support my secularism and I cannot support their theocracy, then neither of us is a particularly good ally to the other. Third, they simply don't have my best interests at heart. Why would I ally myself with a person who expects me support laws based on a religion that is not my own? If I support a religiously-motivated political movement am I not giving credibility to right-wing religiously-motivated political groups with less honorable intentions? Details matter.

Then, there's your persistent equivocation, your complete and utter failure to recognize the two statements "I believe gravity is a function of mass" and "I believe a first century Jewish carpenter came back from the dead" as being qualitatively different in their implications. This has been explained to you over and over and over again, and yet you persist with this contemptible nonsense, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't go into any great deal to divorce you of this inane notion. Suffice it to say, you're wrong. You were wrong yesterday. You are wrong today. And you'll likely remain wrong tomorrow. If you feel like saying "we all have beliefs" again, save yourself the trouble and don't.

[guillaumeb]

31. What shall I say is illustrated by your response?

I could start with your attempts at framing and mischaracterizing.

So let us start here. You wrote:

Then, there's your persistent equivocation, your complete and utter failure to recognize the two statements "I believe gravity is a function of mass" and "I believe a first century Jewish carpenter came back from the dead" as being qualitatively different in their implications. This has been explained to you over and over and over again, and yet you persist with this contemptible nonsense, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't go into any great deal to divorce you of this inane notion. Suffice it to say, you're wrong. You were wrong yesterday. You are wrong today. And you'll likely remain wrong tomorrow. If you feel like saying "we all have beliefs" again, save yourself the trouble and don't.

Your first attempt at framing concerns my statements on knowledge and belief/faith.

You said:

Then, there's your persistent equivocation, your complete and utter failure to recognize the two statements "I believe gravity is a function of mass" and "I believe a first century Jewish carpenter came back from the dead" as being qualitatively different in their implications.

I have stated repeatedly that faith is not necessary to accept any of Newton's Laws because they are all provable. So you are either misreading my many statements, or deliberately misstating them.

As to your first two paragraphs, the philosophy embodied in them is inconsistent with what the Democratic Party actually does. Perhaps you need to find a new party wherein every member agrees 100% with all of your goals. By your peculiar logic, all of President Obama's attempts to find common ground and allies with some GOP members while working on healthcare was a huge error.

As to empathizing with non-peers, and I assume that you are referring to theists versus non-theists here, while I have read numerous claims that theists here are intolerant of non-theistic viewpoints, I cannot find any proof of these claims. I do not say that these claims are false, it may be that my own search skills are deficient, but to date I have not seen any proof that there have been many posts demonstrating intolerance of theists for non-theists at DU. Quite the reverse is the case, in my experience.

[Act_of_Reparation]

33. Yawn.

I have stated repeatedly that faith is not necessary to accept any of Newton's Laws because they are all provable. So you are either misreading my many statements, or deliberately misstating them.

Nothing is provable. Bone up on your Hume.

As to your first two paragraphs, the philosophy embodied in them is inconsistent with what the Democratic Party actually does. Perhaps you need to find a new party wherein every member agrees 100% with all of your goals. By your peculiar logic, all of President Obama's attempts to find common ground and allies with some GOP members while working on healthcare was a huge error.

Did I say two parties needed to agree on everything in order work together? No.

Did I say two parties needed to agree on everything to becomes allies? No.

I did say it is unwise to ally when the disagreement is fundamental and not aligned with either party's self-interest.

As to empathizing with non-peers, and I assume that you are referring to theists versus non-theists here, while I have read numerous claims that theists here are intolerant of non-theistic viewpoints, I cannot find any proof of these claims. I do not say that these claims are false, it may be that my own search skills are deficient, but to date I have not seen any proof that there have been many posts demonstrating intolerance of theists for non-theists at DU. Quite the reverse is the case, in my experience.

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you there. Your privilege was turned up too loud.

[guillaumeb]

34. I understand. You ignore what you cannot refute.

Probably the best response for you to make here, given that your first accusation is demonstrably untrue, as my many posts on belief and knowledge will show. So your only reply was an attempt to deflect from the unproven accusation.

[Act_of_Reparation]

35. You're not being ignored. You're being dismissed.

There's a difference.

[guillaumeb]

36. Yes there is a difference.

The difference between condescension and respectful dialogue.

But in spite of your attitude, your accusation remains unsupported.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. So the "Good News:" prefix is like in jurrassic park 3 when they find the cell phone in the dung

and pull it out like 'hey, found something positive in the giant heap of dino shit'.


Drips and drabs of tiny bits of optimism, awash in a sea of bullshit and horribleness, with no sense of perspective. It would make a fantastic hashtag.

[guillaumeb]

8. If one always focuses on the negative in everything one will invariably find only the negative

in everything.

But if that is your preferred way of dealing with things I understand.

[trotsky]

23. All viewpoints are needed.

This is not an echo chamber for you.

[guillaumeb]

26. Nor for you.

My personal view is that certain posters in the Religion group seem to have decided that the group should concentrate only on the negatives.

[trotsky]

28. I've never said it needed to be.

You are the one who has put themselves in a position of judgment, and make snide decrees about people's agendas and motivations when they don't post enough content that you approve.

You are the one who has held up religious bigots in order to praise religion at the expense of the progressive agenda.

You are the one who insists he can define atheism better than atheists can.

Perhaps you should consider that others might just view YOUR posts as negative.