OK, I admit it. I will openly discriminate against the highly religious in the 2012 elections.

[backscatter712]

Call me a bigot. I don't fucking care. But I have absolutely no respect for the highly religious, and I do not want one in the Oval Office.

If you're a Pentecostal who speaks in tongues, I don't want you speaking for me.

If your idea of preparing for the campaign trail is getting blessed by a crazy preacher who was literally hunting "witches" in Africa, I don't want you giving your blessing as President to the routine oppression of everyone from Muslims to atheists to gays and lesbians.

If you wear magic underwear and think it protects you from fire and bullets, I don't want you swearing an oath to protect and defend the United States. Because I don't think you're sufficiently centered in reality to properly manage the country's problems.

If your solutions for pressing state and national problems is prayer, or as Bill Maher put it, "YEEHAW!!! JESUS TAKE THE WHEEL!!!", I don't want you at the helm of the ship of state.

If your history on GLBT issues includes having a husband with a "Pray-The-Gay-Away" clinic, I don't want you anywhere near the levers of power that give you control over civil rights, health policy or anything else of substance.

If your worldview's projections of the future includes the return of long-dead deities, apocalyptic wars, extermination of infidels, the end of the world, firestorms, death, dogs and cats living together, and mass hysteria, I DON'T WANT YOUR FINGER ON THE FUCKING BUTTON!!!

If there were any all-out open atheists on the ticket, I'd be likely to be supporting them, but as atheists are still second-class citizens, I'm stuck trying to figure out which candidates can keep the effects of their delusions about magical sky-daddies down to a dull-roar and out of their judgments as President.

Sad, isn't it?

[PassingFair]

1. Sad? Sound like common sense to me. nt

[Kurmudgeon]

48. Could have just as easily said, don't vote Republican.

[66 dmhlt]

64. But that's no fun at all ...

[defendandprotect]

76. Wasn't Obama basing his "belief"in traditional non-gay marriage on his religious beliefs?

[MadMaddie]

79. Maybe he was but his actions prove that he has evolved

things are perfect and like all things still need some improvement. If one of those crackpots gets into office you can count on every law that deals with the gay communities to be overturned. You can count on the Supreme Court going so far right that this country will rival other fanatical religious countries.

[defendandprotect]

86. So there has been little we could ...

trust Obama with --

selection of his "team" which was comprised of the exact same people who created

the meltdown --

the icing on the cake being eloping into "White House with Koch Bros. DLC Rahm Emmanuel -- !!

his betrayal of single payer health care in back room deals with Big Pharma and the

private health care industry --

his renewal of tax cuts for the rich --

but Obama is going to be a dependable sure thing bet on two more appointments to the

Supreme Court?


:rofl: -- :rofl: -- :rofl:


How many foxes has Obama appointed to government agencies!!??


:nuke:

[aero56]

150. Highly Religious

I thought the issue is about having a "highly religious" person in office, not about Obama?

[defendandprotect]

248. Read the post I was responding to --

[Moonwalk]

181. Actually, one of the few things Obama seems to have done right--

--is his appointments to the Supreme Court. There was an article about how his appointments are making lawyers really explain the cases (especially right-wing ones) and defend them as compared to the right-wing Judges who ask little or no questions and are clearly in agreement with those lawyers even before they open their mouths. His two picks are mostly if not always voting against the right-wing judges, and they're standing up for the other side.

So, as an atheist, meaning: "show me the evidence," the evidence says that Obama's not a bad picker of Supreme Court justices.

But you misunderstand if you think the OP was arguing for trusting Obama. All the argument says is that everyone, Obama included, seems to be relying on unproven magic to make important decisions for us. And if there was someone not so swayed, that's who the OP would vote for. As there isn't, the least "magical minded" is the only one the OP feels may be a little more trustworthy. And given the crazy extremities, that might be Obama. Again, that doesn't mean the OP would trust Obama if there were a more rational option. It only means that, sadly, there isn't...and why is that?

[defendandprotect]

249. Partially agree --

Two appointees who replaced liberal SC members -- and which changes NOTHING --

Still 5-4 -- in favor of right wing fascists --

Keep in mind, neither did Obama attack Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid on his first

day in office --

Nor begin to stand against single-payer on his second day in office --

He's picked up a lot of RW steam as he's gone along --



But you misunderstand if you think the OP was arguing for trusting Obama.


Certainly I understood what the OP is suggesting -- and I'm all for it --

It's an idea that I tried to broaden in pointing out that we have hundreds of Catholics

in Congress now, with the Pope not only having run a coup on Vatican II -- which was

intended to turn the RCC into a democracy -- but that this Pope is moving the RCC towards

EVANGELICALISM! Where does that leave the Catholics in Congress now? Shall we ask for

their declarations of separation from this fascist church -- or shall we simply target

them all?

I also tried to broaden the discussion with pointing out Obama's support for traditional

marriage, presumably based on his own religious beliefs! Or should I say religious prejudices

from which male-supremacist religion has profited?


The OP raises an excellent question about candidates and elected officials and religious

ties -- however, it needs to be more broadly addressed to poiint to the historical links

between elites and religion as a tool of capitalism -- *





* Finally, Capitalism promoted religion, the opiate designed to keep the working

class docile" --

Schrank/"Wasn't that a Time"

[MadMaddie]

250. How many good people has he nominated only to be stopped

by Republicans?

Sotomayor and Kagen have not been bad choices. Elizabeth Warren was a perfect choice but the Republicans were going to stop that nomination no matter what. The current choice is facing huge opposition.

I ask you again on the Gay rights issue which one of your steller candidates will protect and promote equal rights in this country?

Since it's obvious you want one of the Republican stooges.....have fun and watch this country turn into Afghanastan and the Taliban. Don't complain because the rest of us who see the big picture understand what happened in Nov 2010.

[alp227]

112. Personal belief and public policy can be separate n/t

[defendandprotect]

251. Possible . . . as is the concept of honest men --

We also recognize there are dishonest men among us . . .


And, as we've seen with Obama, who he was during the campaign is not

who he was after the election -- or as Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it --

"Obama was for a lot of things during the cmapaign that he is no longer for!"


You can be a Catholic and support Roe vs Wade even if your religious

teachings are anti-abortion --

but you may also be a Cahtolic who will not support Roe vs Wade if this

is what your religion teaches re abortion --

And as we know, candidates will often hide their religious/personal beliefs

in order to be elected --


Since we don't have crystal balls which will tell us which candidate is trustworthy

and which isn't, I will avoid candidates who practice male-supremacist religion --

[roguevalley]

203. you won't be a bigot. you are voting against poseurs. these are

liars and deceivers who are using God as a shield to do evil. Not voting for them is a civic duty. You are being patriotic to vote against liars and fools.

[RagAss]

2. This is an intelligent decision....why are you sad about it ?

[backscatter712]

3. Sad that atheists are considered completely unelectable in the U.S. n/t

[RagAss]

6. Well actually,,,has any self-proclaimed atheist ever run for President.?

How do we know what would happen ? We've never seen anyone with guts like that.

[backscatter712]

11. IIRC, the atheists who've actually made it just to Congress could be counted on one hand.

Just getting a seat in the House is hard enough, even in a blue district. Getting elected President is impossible, especially when all the fundie megachurches go apeshit about your lack of belief and unleash their zombie hordes...

[RagAss]

18. I'd still love to see a candidate say "No, no religion. I don't believe in fairy tales"

Just once.

[backscatter712]

23. Me too! n/t

[maheanuu]

73. Me Three!!!!

I despise all those who have made me a 2nd Class citizen in your country, all the CO's who blinked rapidly when I handed them the Blue Jackets Manual and told them I would NOT swear an oath on some pie in the sky fairy tale legend....

Atheist and damn proud of it. My murican family prey their asses off for my redemption, I keep tellin em to shit in one hand and prey in the other and see which fills first...

Hang in there Backscatter one day these knuckle draggers will all be gone and people will rule not some superstitious ass wipe that eats a cracker and drinks blood....

[BiggJawn]

100. When did we get promoted to 2nd Class status? n/t

[chervilant]

141. hmm...

Pray... Prey... almost indiscernible difference, actually.

[PassingFair]

204. TJ

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the
Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin will be classified
with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these
United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding and restore
to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated
Reformer of human errors."

Letter to John Adams 1823

[jeff47]

22. Studies have been done asking, "Would you vote for a president who is ______"

"An Atheist" was at the bottom of the list.

"Gay" beat Atheist by 15 points.

[RagAss]

28. What studies? Have a link?

[riderinthestorm]

44. Here's one. There are many. google is your friend.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm

[RagAss]

72. Thanks but this is an old study...just prior to the "in your face" nutjob revolution of late.

[awoke_in_2003]

91. the country has gotten...

even more religious- it gets worse every year. At least that is my perspective in the babble belt.

[jeff47]

105. 2007 Gallup better?

http://positivethought.org/index.php/blog/2-religion/22-would-you-vote-for-an-atheist-for-president

Atheist: 45%, Gay 55%, over 72 57%

However, they ask the question in a much more 'supportive' way. Explicitly stating that the candidate is qualified predisposes the person answering the question towards yes.

[riderinthestorm]

173. I explicitly said that this was only one of many. All polls are in line with the one I posted.

I see someone else already posted a more recent poll but honestly, Americans are becoming even more rigid in their religiosity and open mindedness towards "others" like atheists (or Muslims as another example) so why would you think the numbers of people who would vote for an atheist would dramatically improve?

[awoke_in_2003]

90. polls indicate....

that only 14% of America would vote for an atheist for president. This is less then would vote for a muslim or gay person.

[CarrieLynne]

174. I think in some states a belief in god is required to run at all

[Union Scribe]

32. I do wonder why.

You guys can't ever seem to stop at condemning fundamentalists. You start to, like you did in the OP, then you just widen the target and slam every religious American. You really don't know why voters wouldn't elect someone who calls their beliefs fairy tales about "sky daddies" and your other cute little slurs?

[Zhade]

42. That's not a slur. You should know what one is before accusing anyone of them.

It's disrespectful to the beliefs, but who cares? Beliefs aren't off-limits. Never have been, never will be.

[Arugula Latte]

63. Right. People choose their beliefs, and thus aren't protected from mocking.

[immoderate]

88. I don't think that's so. People don't have conscious control over their beliefs.

Like a favorite flavor, it's beneath, and supersedes, consciousness.

Some beliefs are intellectual. That's different.

--imm

[fishbulb703]

102. So religion is not an intellectual belief? I agree. nt

[obxhead]

170. 99% of the time your parents control your religious belief.

I tel many fundies they are a victim of circumstance. Had they been born in Iraq they would likely be a devout Muslim. They often don't get it.

[Fred Engels]

45. I have no connection to this site but it expresses my own thoughts very clearly

http://www.godisimaginary.com

[defendandprotect]

77. Religion is a personal belief system ... your choice ... we are free to challenge all such beliefs!

Especially when they are brought out into the public area --

and a website is certainly a public arena intended for such challenges in debate!

[demwing]

92. DU is not a public arena, it is a privately owned, members only forum

there are restrictions on who can be a member, and rules for appropriate posting.

Religious intolerance, including intolerance of the religious, is a no-no

[defendandprotect]

93. Of course DU is a public arena ...

and yes there are rules --

Notice the protections of the Constitution/Bill of Rights which guarantee

your right to freedom of thought and conscience -- a democratic notion

which is totally opposite the dictates of male-supremacist religions!


And DU certainly does not mandate reverence for religion!


If you value democracy and "equality for all" then support for organized

patriarchal religion would be hypocritical --

[BiggJawn]

101. Well, I see the mindset that drove me away years ago is still active.

Do some reading up on "Seven Mountains".

Then tell me I'm supposed to be tolerant of THAT bullshit?

Years ago, the Xians used to come into the Atheist forum and argue with us, but if we went into their forum, and argued with them, they went crying to Skinner about how we were "bashing" them.
Some of the odd rules concerning the Atheist's forum were a result of that "war".

After a couple of good friends got tombstoned, I said "fuck it" and left.

[demwing]

131. Well this thread still stands, so apparently you're safe

win for the bigotry!

[AlbertCat]

137. win for the bigotry!

What bigotry?

Pointing out the absurd is not bigotry. Neither is pointing out the abuses of the absurd.


The religious just LOVE to feel persecuted. Christians and Muslims especially. I always chuckle when we get one of those "Christianity is under attack!" memes when there's a church on every other corner of every city in the USA... tax free with Gov. subsidies... and billboards everywhere.... and TV shows and stations.... and even SciFi movies where the aliens are really angels.... and children's books that are Christian analogies (but don't write a book about wizards!).... or are appalled that we teach what science shows us in school (because it's the foundation of biology) and.... and.... and....

The bigotry of atheists pales in comparison to all the bigotry and harm of religions.

The worst for me are all those religionists who poo-poo science while thoroughly (and mindlessly) enjoying the benefits of science.

[BiggJawn]

258. Apply your teeth to my buttocks. N/T

[astral]

149. Thank you. (But it's not true when it comes to religious intolerance.)

I don't have a church nor do I try to convert anyone or care if they believe in God or not. But if I were to say such derogatory things about gay people I would be immediately banned from DU. If I were to say such things about Wiccans (which I am pretty damned sure is a religion) I would be zapped off the thread, if not banned from DU.

I do not believe this argument that people have to proclaim religion in order to be elected. It just so happens a lot of people believe in God, whether or not they claim to be 'religious.' If I think it's batshit crazy to not believe in a higher intelligence who created this universe and all the life in it, I don't slam the people who do not believe, I just think what I think, and I believe what I believe.

You can hate people who believe in God (well it SOUNDS like you do) and you can stand on the rooftops and scream about it, there's nothing wrong with that.

For those who are not standing on the top of the roof, it sounds a little different.

[Moonwalk]

195. Gays vs. the Religious are Apples and Oranges...

You're comparing Apples and Oranges if you compare your religious beliefs to being Gay--and I think you know this. If I say something rude about a person's race or gender or sexual orientation, then I'm discriminating against them not because their beliefs or values are abhorrent to me, but because of something they have no control over. And reason this is wrong, and will get me banned here on the DU, is because the DU believes that people should be judged on the content on their character, not skin color--or gender or sexual orientation--all of which have nothing to do with character.

But if I say rude things about, oh, say, Republicans, well, I'm commenting on the choices they freely and willingly made about what to believe in and what to value and what to uphold and what to follow. And this was all their choice. And maybe they'll change their minds and vote democrat next time. Because belief is something a person can and does change.

So, I'm sorry, but the comparison isn't valid. You wouldn't show respect for the beliefs of a republican who denied climate change, insisted that gays can be cured, and argued that muslims need to be locked up, even if all these were all based on their spiritual faith, would you? So why must someone respect your religious beliefs as if they're something you were born with and can't change--not something you freely decided on and want to believe? You understand, I think, that If we hold your religious beliefs as off limits to comments, criticisms, and analysis, however rude, then we must also hold the beliefs of Republicans, who often base their political views on what their religion tells them, to also be off limits to comments, criticism and analysis.

When you take on a belief, any belief be it spiritual or moral--choose it, pick it, want it--that means you are willing to deal with opposition to it--even impolite opposition. This is not the same as being born with something that you didn't choose and can't change and so shouldn't have to deal with opposition to it--like your gender or race or sexual orientation. So please don't compare being religious to being gay, nor what someone is saying to you, however rude, as unconscionable as someone saying the same thing to someone gay. The one is banned because it comments on something that can't be changed and has nothing to do with the person's character. The other is allowed because it comments on something that could change, and has everything to do with the person's character.

[Luminous Animal]

235. That is an excellent post.

[humblebum]

211. It is still heavily viewed by a wide range of political persuations. nt

[Arugula Latte]

214. So would you say the same thing about political beliefs?

"Republican intolerance is a no-no?"

Both are belief systems. There's no protective cone around belief in the supernatural.

[demwing]

257. no, because it's not a disallowed behavior

Religious bashing is, even though it is as hard as hell to get the mods to enforce it

[AlbertCat]

134. Religion is a personal belief system ... your choice ... we are free to challenge all such beliefs!

Exactly!

It is true religion is drummed into you from birth.... but adults drop Santa and the Easter Bunny. However, there are not punishments for dropping these illusions. Dropping religion can get you killed! But more commonly, it makes you an outcast, This can be devastating to a social animal.

[tomp]

130. there is such a thing as reasonable religion and unreasonable religion.

of course we cannot dictate what people believe. but what we can do is examine the results of the actions of institutions of religion and of people who profess certain beliefs.

there is very little that is more clear in history than that the actions of people who claim to have the one, only, and final word of god have been danger to humanity.

such views represent the very roots of intolerance and lead to nothing but isolating groups and setting them against one another, often resulting in the deaths of millions.

this type of thinking also extends to non-religious "believers" is all the "isms" such as capitalism, marxism, facism, etc.

also, atheists who fail to take into account the religious function of the human psyche are doing nothing but beating their heads against the wall of reality.

these are all unacceptable position in reasonable politics.

[AlbertCat]

140. there is such a thing as reasonable religion

I don't think so.

Someone you might call "reasonable" in a religious sense is only so because they have dropped a great deal of the religious teachings. The Fundies are the ones who haven't dropped the stuff that science has clearly shown to be bunk

The very foundation of religions... that there is a supernatural world and when you die, you really don't die, but go somewhere else or come back, and that Descartian duality, the existence of a soul, the idea that there is justice in nature.... these are all completely unreasonable.

[tomp]

230. religion is about belief....

....and in and of itself is inherently counter-reasonable. so yes, you are right.

what i was trying to get at was that people can hold religious beliefs and still be reasonable in how they act in society.

anyone who has "dropped" the idea that their religious view supercedes anyone else's belief, in religion or otherwise, is being pretty reasonable.

it's anyone who thinks they have the last word on how things are or what should be believed is the problem.

[Critters2]

4. Just a reminder--Ayn Rand was an atheist.

It might be a good idea to consider policy positions over religious view points. I'm guessing Harry Reid wears magic underwear, too. I don't understand that, but I don't find it a reason to vote against him.

[backscatter712]

9. Point - I wouldn't vote for her - she's batshit in a different direction.

But Sweet Zombie Jesus, look at the Republicans!

[Taverner]

21. If the candidate is a Pentecostal, I wouldn't care how liberal they were

They would not get my vote

Rolling on the floor and babbling nonsense is not the sign of a healthy mind

[defendandprotect]

78. OK .. we now have 100's of Catholics in Congress -- and RCC is going EVANGELIST...!!!

The Pope is moving the Church in that direction --

I'd guess anyone who is still supporting this church/religion will have to

make up their minds whether they are going to support this move to the

Fundamentalist right -- or whether they are going to reject the religion.


Those who remain in the church will not be those I will be voting for.


We've also seen that the horrors of sexual abuse of children by pedophile priests

in the Church continues on -- with an even more shocking revelation that the Pope

has advised the Church in Ireland to disregard new government laws on reporting

these crimes!!!

Legislators who are Irish Catholic are shocked and condemn these actions -- !!

Where is that condemnation here in the US by our Catholic legislators?



See the new Cloyne Report --

:nuke:

[Tesha]

27. Harry Reid is a pretty pathetic Democrat too. (NT)

[izquierdista]

35. Only because of the billing issue

She didn't want a deity getting in the way of her selfishness.

[wickerwoman]

56. Misses the point.

There is nothing inherent to atheism that suggests that someone is batshit crazy. That doesn't mean you can't be an atheist and *also* be batshit crazy (or an evil asshole). But atheism isn't a symptom of batshit craziness or sociopathy.

Believing that the world will end in your lifetime *is* a symptom of batshit craziness, as is supporting Israel to bring about end times faster, or *knowing* you get your own planet when you die, or thinking that God has approved your mission and gives you strength to kill your enemies, or thinking that the planet can support 7 billion people consuming whatever they feel like and having fifteen kids each because "God will find a way to provide for them".

And so is thinking blastocysts should have more rights than adults with Parkinsons or that braindead people should be kept alive even when it bankrupts families or that you made a lot of money because you're a good person and God loves you and if other people don't have what you have its because God doesn't love them enough, or that its up to you to decide what a lifelong committed relationship between two people is.

To steal a line from Richard Dawkins: "The problem with religion is that it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world." And I think that's a fundamental flaw in a world leader.

[defendandprotect]

80. Reid is a rather poor example of a Democrat -- and how strong is he on ERA, Roe vs Wade?

I'm not sure -- but certainly I won't be supporting anyone who is involved

with male-supremacist religion -- organized patriarchal religion!

[provis99]

109. and Hitler was a Catholic.

so?

[darkstar3]

115. Assholes come in every stripe, color, creed, and shape,

but unlike the abundant assholes who cover themselves with religious imagery and can't get Jesus off their tongues, Rand never tried to hide her assholish nature under a veneer of piety.

[totodeinhere]

216. I would like to have an opportunity to vote for an atheist, but that doesn't mean that

I would vote them just because they are an atheist even though I might disagree with them on issues.

[Donnachaidh]

5. No "rapture ready" person should ever be considered for that office.

The thought of some nutter with *visions* and *hearing voices from God* scares the crap out of me.

[backscatter712]

8. I keep picturing Bill Hicks...

talking about Christian fundamentalists in the White House (Reagan and Bush Sr.) with their fingers on the button, doing his impression with his eyes rolled into the back of his head, holding his hand over the button saying "Tell me when, Lord! Tell me when! Let me be your servant, Lord!"

[defendandprotect]

81. Remember this Pope is taking RCC all the way to Evangelicalism ... !!!

And we have 100's of Catholics in Congress ... who will either continue to

support this new Fundamentalism -- which has long been underway -- or reject it!!

[lunatica]

7. It's only sad because we actually have those people vying for the Presidency

Lately it's been hitting me that this is like living in an alternate universe where everything, even common sense has been reversed in some obscure way.

[MessiahRp]

10. I feel the same way.

I can't understand why anybody would want to propel these people to power when it's clear that their judgment comes from a book of fairy tales.

Rp

[backscatter712]

12. Amen!!! n/t

[JoePhilly]

13. Sure, but Obama is just like the GOP ....

Obama is just like them ... Or not.

I think "or not".

[defendandprotect]

82. Wasn't his support for

traditional marriage vs gay marriage based in his religious beliefs?

[LAGC]

169. Hey, at least Obama pays lip service to non-believers and doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve.

A far cry from any of the Republican candidates.

[MrDiaz]

14. What is the difference

Between you doing this, and repukes openly opposed to homosexuality, or muslims, or global warming?

[backscatter712]

15. A significant bias towards reality, rather than delusion. n/t

[muffin1]

37. !

:thumbsup:

[AlbertCat]

144. A significant bias towards reality, rather than delusion.

Bingo!


I wouldn't vote for a crazy atheist either... Just because they're atheist.

[Wait Wut]

17. Extremism.

That's the difference. I'd vote for a Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist or Satanist if I thought he/she would be good for the country. I don't believe an extremist, in any catagory, would be.

I support faith and non-faith. I don't support nutballs that claim their God spoke to them and told them to run for President.

[moksha]

25. The correlation would be someone not voting for another because the

candidate is gay, Muslim or acknowledges global warming.

To a further point, I assume the OP would include extremist Muslims in the list of those not to be trusted with power. Additionally, what religion one chooses to practice in 2012 is not the same as one's sexual orientation.

[backscatter712]

30. I won't vote for an extremist Muslim, for the same reason I won't vote for an extremist Christian.

As for GLBT, I said nothing about them in the OP, and in fact, have absolutely no problems with voting for a gay/lesbian/transgender President, especially if he or she is an atheist!

[defendandprotect]

84. No -- homosexuality isn't a personal choice ... religion is ...

and we have every right to challenge and question organized patriarchal religion --

including the Muslim religion --

And, you include Global Warming!!! ... as a belief system??? ROFL

Keep in mind, however, that this Pope is moving the RCC to Fundamentalism --

EVANGELICALISM -- which he has made quite clear --

Overall, if you support democracy and the concept of "all are equal" it would be

hypocritical to support any male-supremacist organized religion!!

[astral]

153. Religion is a personal choice? Is whether or not you believe in God a personal choice?

I do not happen to agree with that. Sure, a person can choose which denomination of church they want to belong to, or whether to join a church at all, or what to call God in their prayers, but whether or not someone believes in God is not a 'choice.' I can't 'choose' to not believe in God anymore than you can choose TO believe if you do not.

I believe the earth is round and that the air that I breathe exists. I do not see how I could 'choose' to no longer believe that what I think is true is true.

However, you DO choose whether you want to to talk loudly about what you do and do not believe and proclaim your religion or lack thereof.

Just because you believe the earth is flat doesn't mean it is. Just because you don't believe air exists because you can not see it does not give you the ability to stop breathing. Just because you do not believe God created you doesn't mean you can stop existing.

: ) Okay the last two lines are just kind of kidding but really point out the absurdity of us despising each other because we do not think or believe in the same way.

[cleanhippie]

222. Yes, it most certainly IS a personal choice.

One can choose to believe in the supernatural, despite the lack of ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, or one can choose not to.

Its simple, really.

[defendandprotect]

252. Do you not understand "Separation of Church & State" ... ?

It is our guarantee of the highest privilege any citizen can have -- i.e., freedom

of conscience --

It is our guarantee of freedom of thought, our guarantee of the right to personal

conscience -- free will --

And, yes, whether or not to believe in a "god" is a personal choice!

There is no universal mandate that says you have to believe in a "god" -- and our

Constitution protects you from any such dictate from any church!


And you honestly have thought that your ONLY choice was which religion to belong to?

Wow!! :eyes:


True human spirituality enemates from within -- it has nothing to do with a "god" or "gods" --

and certainly NOTHING to do with male-supremacist religion --

It's the basis of who we are as people --

Everything we do begins first on a spiritual level -- how we think about the world --

Our desire to be free from dictates -- "equality for all" --


: ) Okay the last two lines are just kind of kidding but really point out the absurdity of us despising each other because we do not think or believe in the same way.

Agree -- but unfortunately if you are at all familiar with the history of organized patriarchal

religion you will note that it has many enemies from the beginning of its time --

Women, Jews, Homosexuals -- African Americans -- Pagans - Atheists --

And male-supremacist religions have for 2,000 years preached intolerance and hatred for those

groups --



Religion is the invention of patriarchy -- and a tool of capitalism




PATRIARCHY -- and its underpinning =

ORGANIZED PATRIARCHAL RELIGION -- and its economic invention =

CAPITALISM =

THE UNHOLY TRINITY




You might also reflect on "Man's Dominion Over Nature" and "Manifest Destiny" which are

the licenses granted to elites by religion to exploit nature, natural resources, animal

life -- and even other human beings according to various myths of "inferiority."


It is responsible for concepts of exploitation -- especially by capitalists -- which have

give us such destruction of nature as to have caused Global Warming.

[Luminous Animal]

29. As an atheist who eschews religion from the public sphere and, actually,

finds it ridiculous, am not a bigot for not having any respect for ones chosen philosophy or ideology. Similarly, I reject libertarianism and fascism.

But, while I might argue against someone's chosen philosophy or ideology, I would not advocate for any restriction that would encroach on the Bill of Rights while reserving the right to express my opposing view. Fundamentalist have a RIGHT to reject homosexuality as part of their philosophy, and I reject that they have the right to legislate against it using their philosophy has justification.

[yardwork]

34. I dunno. What's the difference between the FBI and the Ku Klux Klan?

Aren't they both fighting to protect us? Can you see a difference between the two groups, or are they identical in your mind?

[wickerwoman]

58. Is there anything about being gay or muslim that disqualifies you from a job?

Because thinking the world will end in your lifetime (and that that's a good thing) should sure as shit disqualify you from the position of red-button pusher.

[iamthebandfanman]

59. im not sure what being gay and global warming

have to do with the point you are trying to make?

oops?

[Horse with no Name]

16. I refuse to discriminate

I do NOT want ANYONE in the WH who wants to shove their religiosity down my throat.

I don't care if it is Christianity or any variation thereof, Muslim, Catholicism...or ANYTHING.

I do not care what any candidate does in their private life...but keep it out of the fucking national discourse.

[Lint Head]

19. This is an EXCELLENT post! May I copy and spread it around?

I love it!

[backscatter712]

20. By all means! n/t

[hifiguy]

24. I don't vote for crazy people of any stripe

and that being said, the fundamental religulous are the craziest people in this country.

[dtexdem]

26. Well, you may have a hard time doing that:

most politicians may be at least putting up a front that they are highly religious.

[backscatter712]

31. That contributes to how fucked up America is.

In order to get elected, either you have to be religious, or you have to lie and tell people you're religious when you're not. Either believe in fairy-tales, or become a liar. Not exactly the kind of traits I'd encourage in our political leaders...

[one_voice]

33. I say this as a person of faith....

big fat K&R!!!!! You've said it perfectly. I'd like to borrow this and put it on my fb page if that's ok with you!

And just for the record, I'd vote for an atheist in a heartbeat.

[LWolf]

36. Where were you

in '08 when McClurkin was campaigning for Obama?

Just wondering.

I don't consider it religious bigotry to recognize that too many fundamentalists of any faith ARE religious bigots, considering their way to be the only way, and working persistently to undermine the separation of church and state.

They are dangerous.

I'm fine with people following whatever faith or belief system they feel suits them best, as long as their practice ends at the end of their nose and doesn't intrude on anyone else.

[demwing]

139. agreed, and thank you

not personally, but just for the fair viewpoint

[AlbertCat]

145. as long as their practice ends at the end of their nose

Does that even happen? Can it? One's beliefs inform one's actions.

[LWolf]

177. It can in this sense:

your beliefs can inform your actions. As long as you don't try to intrude your beliefs into mine, or into my actions, you are fine.

[muffin1]

38. K&R, baby.

K and R.

:applause:

[Zhade]

39. THIS. People can be religious, I just won't reward their irrationality by voting for them.

NT!

[dogmoma56]

43. i don't want to live under their Fascist Theocracy.. link>>

http://doggo.tripod.com/doggchrisdomin.html

[dogmoma56]

40. they are a Cult, if the Xings described werent in it they would call it the Anti-Christ,

Doug Coe of the "C Street Family" AKA:the Christian Mafia, is frequently called the Anti-Christ

http://doggo.tripod.com/doggchrisdomin.html

[santamargarita]

41. I have always openly discriminated against right-wing assholes!

[joanbarnes]

46. Amen! again.......Amen! SO well said.

[Duck]

47. Thanks

If we don't start speaking up every chance we get, these liars and evil phoneys will get what they have always wanted...to run every aspect of our lives and country.

THEY, are the most serious threat to freedom we face.

[Duck]

95. The time is running out...please read and think.

For those of you that took it on your own to learn what was not taught in school, help spread the word. Religion has been used to control people since recorded history began.

In every country they have gained control of, speaking out as we are now became a crime. Often the punishment was death. An ugly and public death.

They have been quietly taking control of West Point, the military branches, congress, and are very close to reaching their goal. They are ruthless and well financed.

I don't post here often because so many on this forum refuse to believe how serious the threat of a complete takeover of our country and it's weapons is. WAKE UP!

It's not politics as usual any more people, the worst is happening, and it's happening now. All of the contenders are actors playing their bit parts, they are all bought and paid for like any thug that helped Capone or Gatti or Bush take power.

PLEASE WAKE UP. We the people can no longer fight against the machine once it has control, the days of muskets are over, they have tapped into everything we do, where we live, who are friends are, where we work, they have it all. They can freeze our bank accounts, have the sheriff pad lock our home, and search our computers to magically find kiddie porn so that you are silenced for life. This has been coming for years.

Please, please, please turn off the TV and wake up before it is too late. Just saying this tonight will get me on a list to be watched or worse, but I am old and don't have much time left, so I risk it.

Freedom is not free, if you want it you will have to fight for it, do it NOW. I beg you.

[cheapdate]

49. I wouldn't vote for them, or shop at their business

if they have some irritating, religious message on their sign. Same goes for loud, jingoistic, demagoguery signage outside of grocery stores, hotels, etc., like "This store 100% AMERICAN owned!" I'm OK with a simple 'support the troops' message, though.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

52. Just the opposite for me.

I'm more likely to buy from a place that is American owned or buy a product made here in America. I guess I'm one of those old school Democrats who think the core of the Democratic party should be the American labor force. As for religion, keep it to yourself.

[cheapdate]

89. I will go to excessive lengths to buy American made products.

I'll pay more money, and drive all over town if I have to. However, there is little reason for a grocery store in a small town to wrap themselves in the flag, as if virtually every other grocery store in the state wasn't American owned. There's nothing wrong with being deeply patriotic, but all of this excessive, in your face, patriotism is not for me. I'll go to the store next door.

[beyurslf]

50. I do that in everything in my life. I will not go to a business that advertises

its religion. I figure they do this only to get people to come there so I make a habit of not going there for that reason. I don't care what religion my locksmith or carpenter is.

[Raksha]

51. K & R - and here I thought I was the only one, even though I knew I couldn't be.

I will NOT vote for an adherent of any high-control religious cult, including but not limited to conservative Catholics, Protestant fundamentalists (Pentecostalists and others), Mormons or anyone I suspect of harboring theocratic tendencies. I've been saying for years that I have my own personal "religious test" for public office, and if anyone doesn't like it...fuck 'em.

This country was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. Period. If you even try to give me an argument about that, you are entitled to your opinion but you do NOT get my vote.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[AlbertCat]

148. I limit my comment to Christians because that's really the only type of religion I have experience

Never had any experiences with a Jew?

Oh that's right...we must walk on eggshells when it comes to Jews.

Remember.... Lieberman is a fundie Jew and the NYC Jews were (are) a huge force against same sex marriage.



But like Reverend Lovejoy says to Ned Flanders "Why don't you try one of the other religions. They're all pretty much the same."



I don't want to single out Jews. I just want to point out, you probably DO have experiences with religions other than Christianity.

[Name removed]

245. Deleted message

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

[Control-Z]

54. Every now and then someone writes about something

exactly as I see it. You've hit the nail on the head for me with this post and I thank you.

Would you mind if I used it on my face book page and possibly a few other places, credited to you, of course?

[backscatter712]

68. Go for it! n/t

[MsPithy]

55. Matthew 6:5

seems to imply that the ostentatiously religious are hypocrites. Campaigning for president, or any elective office on the basis of your superlative Christian faith seems to fit the bill.

[annabanana]

57. I do not believe they are expecially "religious". I believe they see their

way to power through the Theocrats of the Dominionist movement. They are profoundly anti-American.

[backscatter712]

69. Yep. They want to impose Christian Sharia and make us all live The Handmaid's Tale. n/t

[gauguin57]

60. I laughed at the OP till I snorted.

Those preachers Rick Perry is aligning himself with -- the preachers who say "Arkansas had natural disasters because Bill Clinton instituted Don't Ask Don't Tell" and "Katrina was sent to wake New Orleans up about its sinfulness" and "the Statue of Liberty is a goddess idol that the ungodly worship" (I kid you not) -- are too wacko for words. That sh*t makes me so nervous.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[AngryOldDem]

62. This is precisely why Rick Perry scares me to death.

And something is telling me he will get the nomination and he will most likely win, given his built-in base of the South and the evangelicals.

And if that happens, ladies and gents, we are really, truly FUCKED.

Are you being bigoted? Hell, no.

K&R.

[Nye Bevan]

65. Will you vote for a Christian churchgoer who says that he does "a lot of praying"

and whose belief is that marriage is only between a man and a woman?

I hope so, because that's Obama.

[kestrel91316]

66. I almost always discriminate against the overtly religious in elections,

unless I know them to be good liberals and members of a good liberal church.

[Retrograde]

67. I might make an exception for real Christians and similar believers

The ones who actually try to follow the teachings of Jesus, such as "Whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, because they love to pray while standing in synagogues and on street corners so that people can see them. Truly I say to you, they have their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret." and "Be careful about not living righteously merely to be seen by people. Otherwise you have no reward with your Father in heaven" and perform the Seven Corporal Works of Mercy (although this may be a Catholic thing) when the cameras aren't on them. Somehow, I don't think any of the current crop of GOP candidates fits this.

IIRC, there is only one open atheist in Congress, Pete Stark from California.

[Creideiki]

70. Be careful!

Once the Democrats start making statements like, "Gawd is in the mix," you might get banned for not supporting the Democrats 110 million per cent!

[sarcasmo]

71. Right on.

[backscatter712]

74. I should have added: If you hear God speaking to you in your head,

I don't want you taking the oath of office; I want you taking thorazine!

[NightWatcher]

108. I guess that makes me prejudiced too

In fact, yep, if you hear audible voices, I'm going to come right out with you and say you don't need to be steering the ship of state, you need a Schwin with ribbons on the handlebars and a basket for your collection of potato chips that resemble your deity. You do not need to be starting holy wars and crusades.

[defendandprotect]

75. Contrary to ideals of democracy to support ANY organized patriarchal religion, imo --

Why should or would any female support religions which profess male-supremacist

ideals?

Why would any parent support any such religion?


Also, I think we have to separate true inner spirituality from organized religion --

and religious dictates. Two different things, entirely!!

[gateley]

83. Oral Roberts' son was saying that these people are hiding their

RACISM behind the flag of the Tea Party and their claim of being the Religious Right. I was pretty surprised, but of course I had to agree!

(He was on MSNBC, I forget with whom.)

[crunchie]

106. Wasn't the tea party

started by Rupert Murdoch, Ailes, and promoted on Fox Faux news, a right wing propaganda organization?
And certainly endorsed by the Koch brothers, whose father was a founding member of the racist John Birch Society.

[gateley]

254. I'm not sure of the genesis of the Tea Party, but at the very

least Fox jumped on board and promoted them, and the Koch Bros bankrolled them.

[avebury]

85. A Huge K&R

[TriMera]

87. K&R. n/t

[on point]

94. You are not discriminating. They are openly proclaiming themselves to be TOTALLY unfit for office.

I'm sorry, but crazy people need not apply.

[certainot]

96. the roots of organized power hungry nutball religion, right here: http://youtu.be/HnrfuTUlqVs

[certainot]

97. right here:

http://youtu.be/HnrfuTUlqVs

[kelly1mm]

98. I think Obama would violate at least one of your tests. In Feb, 2011

at the national prayer breakfast the President said

"When I wake in the morning, I wait on the Lord, I ask him to give me the strength to do right by our country and our people, and when I go to bed at night, I wait on the Lord and I ask him to forgive me my sins and to look after my family and to make me an instrument of the Lord."

Is the President highly religious?

Link



http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/03/obama-to-deliver-major-speech-on-personal-faith-white-house-official-says/

[The Doctor.]

99. There's a big part of the problem right there.

TPTB want psuedo Christians to feel 'persecuted'. Nothing invigorates and inspires hatred in them as much as the fantasy of victimhood. They'll do anything to anyone if those fears are triggered.

[domonkos]

103. Rotten Brains

I totally agree with the original poster on this one. Like Matt Damon said about Sarah Palin, "I need to know if she believes in dinosaurs or not, because she is going to have the nuclear codes."

During the GOP debate half the candidates closed their statements with some kind of religious hocus pocus spell, "And god bless the united states! Forget I have the IQ of a field mouse, god will guide me!". Give me a break, they sound like mental patients..

[lynne]

104. I'm confused. Is it the highly religious or only those that fit the criteria you list?

As - in many cases - they're two entirely different things. I know many highly religious persons - including my pastors - who don't fit into the criteria you list in any fashion.

Except maybe the "dogs and cats living together" part as they do have pets.

Mighty broad brush you're painting with for such a narrow section of persons.

[AlbertCat]

151. including my pastors

Your pastors are controlers.... who use their "authority" as pastors to tell their congregation what to think. I don't care how "nice" they are. They have desire for power over people based on ancient superstitions too.

Religion is just ancient government, y'know. I don't want any pastor for president either.

[Ruby the Liberal]

107. Like I always say, I am voting for the President of all, not a National Pastor.

[upi402]

110. newcomer eh? welcome! n/t

[Divine Discontent]

111. it seems very clear that you equate personal faith in a deity as being the same as the horrible

attributes that you described. I agree with much of what you state, and I think the FUNDAMENTALISTS (it's not evangelicals, it's those who ascribe to a horribly bigoted outdated closed-minded mentality against anything outside of their white bread opinion of what THEY think God wants) are the problem, not people who believe in God, Jesus Christ, or any other name. You may not like the idea of people believing that a powerful being created the universe, but just like there's many great things done by people of no belief, there are millions of great deeds and creations by those who have a personal belief and they shouldn't be assumed to be the type you described so well in your OP. Those people are to be voted against and called out for being anti-civil rights bigots!

[darkstar3]

116. And the FUNDAMENTALISTS are never you, your friends, or your church, are they?

Why do I always hear this, and yet NO ONE seems able to identify these nebulous fundamentalists beyond pointing at Fred Phelps? If Phelps and his group are the only fundamentalists, why do they hold such sway over our politics?

You're all engaged in a game of "I'm NOT Spartacus!"

[Divine Discontent]

119. laughable accusations

I have called out churches I've attended, and quit going to them, and only attend Gay-Friendly ones, also, I have shamed my own family for being anti-Gay. I have also confronted friends for anti-Gay, anti-Black, anti-Female hate. I have also posted in my Journal, my encounters with RW fundamentalists who tried to get me to stop caring for a homeless woman, and also my post office encounter with a loon challenging me about health care when I wasn't even talking to her.

Your post is ludicrous in its assumptions from behind your keyboard, and you should apologize. You are on DU, where you are gonna find plenty of the type of people who confront others when they expose their bullshit bigotry.

Take care

[AlbertCat]

154. laughable accusations

So are your accusations of the churches you deem unworthy of your attendance. Your christianity is better than theirs! Riiiight. What about your "bigotry" toward those who you have decided are not practicing Christianity the way you think it should be?

Y'know, Jesus does not express a single original idea. All his feel good notions can be found somewhere else. Every one of the 5 major religions has some form of the "golden rule" in them (a secular notion anyway.... not requiring anything supernatural to execute).

The Bible (well, all religious texts) is self contradictory and basically a mess. Because it is cut and pasted from different religions over long periods of time. It can't even decide what god's name is! This is why it's all pick and choose what works for you at any given time and reject the stuff that doesn't fit.

Y'know, atheists pick and choose too. We choose not to pick ANY of it.

Even "good" Christians are ridiculous!

[Divine Discontent]

243. yawn

same ol' anti-Christian you are all 'ridiculous' insults, with a dollop of slimy innuendo that I'm a bigot because, somehow, in your mind, recognizing bigotry in churches against women, gays, atheists and anyone who doesn't follow their strict dogma and confronting it is somehow wrong - which means no one should care what is done to anyone then because you even call people fighting intolerance as being intolerant... pathetic.
You just wanted to take a shot at Christians, and even though I confronted the cruel behaviors in my old churches as I should, you only had one thing on your mind, but you failed at making a point in even doing it.

[cleanhippie]

194. What part of your beliefs ARE grounded in reality?

The part where a man, who was really god, was killed and then resurrected himself and hasn't been seen since? Is THAT part grounded in reality?

[alp227]

113. Fox News wuvs those types of candidates but freaks out over Jeremiah Wright?

When Obama didn't even attend that "god damn America" sermon? Freakin' religious right good ol' boy network.

[Lucian]

114. That's how I live my daily life.

I've always thought the overly-religious people are insane, and I don't want them near me.

[krabigirl]

117. I don't care what religion someone is, as long as they don't try to change laws based on it or

make me be religious. Honestly, it really should be private, and it is none of my business what religion my leaders are. I wish it was more private.

[Divine Discontent]

120. exactly! I don't think about a person's religion or lack thereof when deciding who to vote for

as I vote on the issues. I am a Christian, but I have friends who are Jewish, Christian, new age, atheist, and one was a pretty good co-worker who was Wiccan. I believe what I believe about Christ as my personal choice, but no one else has to believe anything else anyone does, but to assail people for believing what they believe is not the point - it's basing your laws on those beliefs instead of the laws in our gov't. And frankly, we know how the GOP ignores those documents! Shit, many of them ignore of the words in red in the New Testament!

[cleanhippie]

196. Agreed 100%! But when a person states that their beliefs will guide them in their decisions...

then it is no longer a private matter, now is it?

I do not want ANYONE who believes in the supernatural, and states that said belief in the supernatural will determine how they govern. Do you want that? Is THAT private?

[Divine Discontent]

244. I don't mind someone, if asked in running for office, answers a beliefs question, however, they

should certainly state they make their decisions, or would if they never have had the opportunity, based upon the laws of the land, not any belief system. It would be nice if everyone just refused to answer that, but that's not being honest if asked, so I would have a very hard time voting for someone that votes on their interpretations of religious text.

[AlbertCat]

156. Honestly, it really should be private,

But

IT ISN'T


end of story.


period

[darkstar3]

118. It will be a wonderful day when this nation

no longer gives a fuck about the religion of a candidate. Until then, we'll have candidates who must, at the very least, do a lengthy and convincing job of feigning allegiance to the majority faith.

[Veracious]

121. LOL.... Fly my wicked monkeys!

Jesus is cool, just keep him out of my government..

[AlbertCat]

158. Jesus is cool

I thought he was just alright....

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[cordelia]

125. And you've been diagnosed with what exactly?

You exhibit all the symptoms you ascribe to the religious.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[chervilant]

155. Alerted?

I find it rather astonishing that people who profess to have no religious beliefs are considered bigots. Is that not the universal slam that compels the malleable among us to 'embrace' religion?

[cleanhippie]

197. It certainly is, especially when the religious display their bigotry so openly.

[humblebum]

231. COUGH! Excuse me. Hard to keep a straight face. nt

[cleanhippie]

234. I know, right! I do wonder just HOW you post the things you do with a straight face.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

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

[tomp]

127. how did you arrive at that? not via logic. nt

[ProdigalJunkMail]

128. interesting definition of logic you have

as this is pretty much a 1 to 1 match. "I will discriminate against you because you hold religious beliefs" "I will discriminate against you because you hold no religious beliefs"

[AlbertCat]

159. "I will discriminate against you because you hold religious beliefs"

No one said that.

More like:

"I will discriminate against you because you hold INSANE religious beliefs"


If you cannot see the difference.... try not feeling like the comment is directed at you personally. And stop putting making up stuff that isn't there.

This posting is about making this country a theocracy.... not about you.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

183. right...this posting slams religious beliefs of about 3 or 4 sects

of Christianity. My bet is that the OP and many other people on this board see ANY religious belief as 'insane'...scratch that...I KNOW a large number of people on this board who believe just that...

i am not making up a thing...it is clear that this is a blanket statement about religion and since they only selected various Christian sects...I am betting that was the real target.

very naive of you to think otherwise and just as presumptive as my post...but without the factual backing of day to day experience on DU.

sP

[tomp]

126. churches that claim to have the one, only, and final word of god....

.....and people who believe them are a a real and present danger to humanity. this has been proved countless times through history.

in additioin all the "isms" stem from (are merely an extension of) this way of thinking, and are equally dangerous.

[Fred Engels]

247. Remember this?

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

-Emo Phillips

[tomp]

260. brilliant! thanks. nt

[Hubert Flottz]

129. Amen

[WranglerRog]

132. Don't smear all religions...........

Some are very comforting and will lead you to a spiritual existence. However, considering Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the blood thirsty demon known as the God of Abraham, frankly I'm surprised they act as well as they do.

"It's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me. It's the parts I do understand." Mr. Twain.

[cleanhippie]

223. Which ones are those?

The ones that "are very comforting and will lead you to a spiritual existence"?

[AlbertCat]

133. Your list is on the money.... but...

.... I don't want anyone who thinks prayer is a solution to anything. This "norm" is as nutty as worrying about witches.


I don't know about you, but I think when things suck, it is good for the business of religion. Religion WANTS things to be in the crapper. When all hope is gone, many who in normal circumstances don't think twice about religion, except maybe on Sundays and holidays, will in desperation turn to ancient superstitions. A crappy economy is good for religion. A good economy and a government that helps its citizens (what else is it supposed to do?) that is not fighting some war somewhere, will erode the very need for supernatural solutions.

[astral]

161. Prayer as a solution . . .

I would be afraid of people who ask God to do for us what we must do for ourselves. Praying for guidance in public office is kind of cool, if it is sincere. I shorted out on 'religion wants things to be in the crapper.' Religion is by definition not something that can 'want' anything.

God won't give us 'supernatural solutions.' You see we have to fend for ourselves on this physical plane, in the universe of 'cause and effect.' I don't think people in public office who believe in God expect 'supernatural solutions.'

The desperation of ancient superstitions. What a concept. There is much power and force in unseen things, and that includes the human mind. I feel like you're lumping a lot of things into one category. There are supersitions, which I define as things which are not true, and there are the other things about life on earth that we simply haven't been at this long enough to have figured out yet. Things we don't understand, things not yet 'proven' by 'science.'

I believe something that I don't think is very religious. "Ancient superstitions" may have the evidence that we used to know a lot more about things than we do now, and we have forgotten them and need to learn them all over again. The ancient knowledge of the healing powers of plants can be blurred into the category of ancient superstitions but the parts that we have discovered to be true are not superstitions anymore, are they?

(I see the need to try to start a different thread on this idea.)

[LAGC]

164. Yup, religion THRIVES on pain and suffering.

The reason you see so many non-believers in many parts of Europe is because they have a much stronger social safety net. People don't need religion as a crutch to fall back on, they know their secular government has got their back, and in return they don't mind paying a little bit higher taxes for the peace of mind.

America is far more religious, and look at our national dialogue: all our politicians can talk about are more tax cuts and gutting government services, while the national debt sky-rockets.

[demwing]

135. If this were a thread about voting third party, it would have been locked immediately

but since it only bashes the religious, it's allowed to stand, even after two days of Alerts.

[harun]

138. I agree, however the stand against the hypocrisy of those interjecting

religion in to the debate on the GOP side is offensive and not to be discouraged, this poster and most of those agreeing are not discerning that point. DU always love to bash religion and people rec it when it happens.

Not clearly highlighting the difference plays right in to the propaganda of the right that all Liberals look to oppress religion. When Liberals should make clear they don't look to oppress religion. They solely look to combat people using religion to oppress others. A nuanced point but the difference has many implications.

[demwing]

143. I'll take it a step further - IMO, Dems should embrace the PROGRESSIVE religious

The way we did during the Civil Rights protests of the 60s.

I can't see a peaceful, populist way out of corporate domination that does not lean heavily on religion.

[polmaven]

146. Many Liberals

DO look to oppress religion.

[AlbertCat]

162. Many Liberals DO look to oppress religion.

And many religious DO look to oppress free thought.


Come back when you are actually oppressed.

[chervilant]

157. hmm...

Perhaps liberals want our species to grow up, and stop depending on myths and legends to 'save' us from ourselves.

[harun]

165. There are unseen things you believe in too.

[AlbertCat]

171. There are unseen things you believe in too.

If there's some kind of evidence.

[cleanhippie]

225. Like what, exactly?

:popcorn:

[chervilant]

246. hmm...

Interesting that you presume to know ANYTHING about me.

[cleanhippie]

224. Riiight. Because the religious inthis country are SOOOO persecuted.

[demwing]

136. And it's my opinion that hatetheists shouldn't hold office

not atheists, because it doesn't matter whether a person believes in a God or not, but "hatetheists" -- people who are the atheistic version of radical religious fundies.

Hate has no place in a free society.Leave your prejudices at home...all of them

For all those who get upset over any religious discussion at all, do you feel the same about Rev. Martin Luther King, JR? What about his Letter from Birmingham? Does it just piss you off?

[pintobean]

142. Excellent post.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[polmaven]

147. Thank you, demwing...

excellent post.

[AlbertCat]

163. "hatetheists"

Like they're a problem these days? :eyes:

Do stop with the poor put-upon Christian act.

You're no martyr....tho' Christian can't seem to wait to be one!


Just wait 'til the folks this post rails against are in power! You can be the martyr you want to be then... unless of course you plan to tow their line.

[demwing]

175. You should pull your zipper up

I'm not a Christian, and you wee little bias is showing

[LAGC]

176. Even liberal religious sects thrive on pain and suffering.

If it weren't for the oppression and injustice during MLK's time, religion would have never gained as much traction as it did.

The point being, if a government really takes care of its people, people wouldn't need to turn to religion at all.

That's why religious folks (yes, even liberal religious folks) have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, because it gives them opportunity to provide services to the poor and downtrodden that the government should be providing instead.

That's why you see such high levels of non-believers in many European countries -- they don't NEED religion as a crutch to fall back on, their governments have their back with strong social safety nets. They put up with slightly higher taxation because they like what they get in return.

Instead, all we can talk about in uber-religious America is how to cut taxes and gut government services, forcing people to rely on religion more.

[demwing]

182. Which is why Rev King was so invested in maintaining the status quo, right?

is that what you meant to say?

[LAGC]

185. He certainly wasn't a radical, and only wanted piecemeal reforms.

If it weren't for the discrimination against minorities and workers, MLK, Jr. would have never gained any traction, period.

HE THRIVED ON THE SUFFERING OF THE PEOPLE!

A decent government, a just government, that didn't harbor discrimination and oppression, wouldn't need a religious figure to save the day.

The only reason religious charities get so much sympathy is because they are willfully doing a job that any benevolent government should provide: shelter for the homeless, food for the poor, etc.

What would all these religious charities have to do if their services weren't needed any more? THEIR VERY EXISTENCE WOULD NO LONGER BE JUSTIFIED.

[demwing]

190. So you think MLK thrived on the suffering of the people?

please shout that from the rooftops, buddy. Should be interesting...

[LAGC]

191. You tell me.

If African Americans weren't treated so badly back then, how would have MLK been able to captivate so many people with his message?

Don't get me wrong, a figure like MLK was inevitable and NECESSARY back in those times. But how necessary would a figure like him be if the government actually took care of its people?

[demwing]

198. Easy - "No. MLK Did NOT 'Thrive' on Pain And Sufferring"

He advocated non violence, and fought tirelessly against bigotry, poverty, and war. For this, he was thrown in jail, and ultimately assasinated.

Anyone who thinks MLK thrived on the pain and sufferring of others is either a profound idiot, or has a very dark, false agenda.

[LAGC]

213. MLK was a definitely great man who was needed at the time.

In spite of his particular religious views...

[demwing]

229. MLK was not great "in spite of " his religion, his activism was DEFINED by his faith...

Read these 7 paragraphs and refute:

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may want to ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and awful. Paul Tillich said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression 'of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.

Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to ace the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

Religion is like fire. In the right hands, it a great good and provides light and warmth, in the wrong hands, it burns everything it touches.

[LAGC]

237. Well, to use your analogy...

"Religion is like fire."

The problem is, the folks pushing religion the hardest in this country are pyromaniacs!

To borrow a certain line from an unnamed physicist: "There is a very high heat-to-light ratio here -- lots of heat, but very little light being generated."

Sometimes you just have to ditch the whole system when the few perceived benefits are so grossly outweighed by the incredible evil done in its name.

I really don't think this is even a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater anymore, the baby has done DIED and the stench is stinking up the place.

[demwing]

240. That's a different debate - what we are talking about right here is whether MLK

thrived on pain and suffering.

You're was an outrageous statement, which to my knowledge, you have not yet retracted.

[LAGC]

241. Well, excuse me for trying to steer the conversation back to the point of the OP, silly me.

Regarding MLK, I'll concede the point.

I was wrong to imply that he "thrived on pain and suffering" -- after all, he was just a product of his community which happened to be very religious.

There. Happy now?

(I do still think religion as a whole does tend to flourish wherever people are less than happy with their lives... and various studies have shown that less religious societies tend to be happier than those steeped in religious belief.)

[demwing]

242. You didn't imply anything, you wrote it outright

but as you are now retracting it, I'm not going to beat that drum any further.

[Go2Peace]

208. Illogical. By that measure every people's movement leader qualifies

for your assertion.

Movements to resolve issues of injustice are always "supported by suffering". Otherwise there is no need for a movement? Have you thought through this line of thinking?

Here is a list of social movements in history. Most every one of them and the leaders that rose up was empowered by suffering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_movements

[LAGC]

221. Thanks for the link.

Yeah, maybe you're right.

I guess I'm just an idealist -- I envision a society where social movements are no longer necessary.

[Go2Peace]

255. Now that would be great.

Unfortunately it seems like we still have a long way to go.

[NoodleyAppendage]

180. An Angry Atheist is Exactly What America Needs!

We need a passionate atheist politician to fight for logic and reason. Timid will not work when you are fighting against bat shit crazy people.

[Go2Peace]

206. This!

[chervilant]

152. hmm...

Highly Religious...

Joseph Campbell provided an excellent meta-analysis of 'religious beliefs,' finding two nearly ubiquitous commonalities: a belief in a supreme deity and a belief in a 'soul.'

Elaine Pagels has written at length about the socio-political genesis of our modern 'religions.'

Barbara Walker has given us this:

It seems Jesus was not one person but a composite of many. He played the role of sacred king of the Jews who periodically died in an atonement ceremony as surrogate for the real king. "The Semitic religions practiced human immolations longer than any other religion, sacrificing children and grown men in order to please sanguinary gods. In spite of Hadrian's prohibition of those murderous offerings, they were maintained in certain clandestine rites." The priesthood of the Jewish God insisted that "one man should die for the people...that the whole nation perish not" (John 11:50). Yahweh forgave no sins without bloodshed: "without shedding blood is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22).

I lost a very dear friend when I quoted Walker to explain why I don't 'believe' in Jesus.

In short, we have ample empirical data and historical support for the conclusion that we humans have invented 'supreme deities' since before we developed our written languages. Is our religiosity a puerile and stultifying strategy for externalizing personal responsibility? For imposing 'guilt'? Is not our narcissism writ large in our modern depictions of 'God' --an entity complete with gender (male, reinforcing patriarchy), race (white, rendering all other 'races' less than), and personality (jealous and vengeful--what could go wrong here...?).

I believe there is a creative force in this universe. I am in AWE of our universe. However, I do not and cannot believe that whatever 'force' created this universe is a gendered and purposeful 'human-like' entity.

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

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

[AlbertCat]

179. dumb and bigoted!

How so?

Elaborate.

Sounds to me like they are a person scared to death of the direction this country is going in and has figured out that religion is the fuel.

The GOP hierarchy didn't used to be fundy. Karl Rove even said they thought the fundies were a joke but useful idiots (Or do you think Dick Cheney is a good Christian).

But now they have lost control of their minions.

[HopeHoops]

166. K&R - I don't give a fuck WHAT religion someone is - just don't push it on me.

[HelenWheels]

167. Love what backscatter712 says

He's 100% correct.

[babsbunny]

168. Amen.....

[CarrieLynne]

172. I agree 1000%!!!!

[NoodleyAppendage]

178. RAMEN!!!

Bless you. Remember that most of the " christian politicians " really aren't that. Most use the bat shit crazy dog whistle phrases to get votes...that's it. Or, at least I sincerely hope.

[humblebum]

184. I thought the purpose of DU was to help Democrats. This ain't doin' it. nt

[cleanhippie]

200. Agreed, the apologists do NOT help Democrats in any way.

:fistbump:

[Name removed]

210. Deleted message

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

[cleanhippie]

236. At least you can recoginze that your own posts are trolling, mindless babble.

You replied to yourself, you know. You should be more careful, your hypocrisy is starting to conflict with itself. Or is this another example of how your contradiction is confirmation of what you say?


:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:

[ooglymoogly]

186. Smart folks the world over must get a grip and work much, much harder to

minimize the power of zealots and zealotry wherever it rears its monstrous head. Zealots produce the chaos that allow banksters to rob and plunder the world of its resources and so are supported mightily by these soulless thugs. Thugs who now have gained control of the world by these methods of division, driving it to madness while becoming even greedier.

[humblebum]

212. Even when those zealots are radical atheists. nt

[cleanhippie]

238. Yes, since those "radical athesists" are such a modern threat.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[azureblue]

187. The problem is not the "religious"

it's the ideologues, the dogmatics, and those, who, for one reason or another (a lot of money comes to mind) have insulated themselves from society. Those that live up inside their heads and not in the real world. They are the ones to not vote for...

[hlthe2b]

188. re: "highly religious"...... Would JFK, RFK or Teddy have passed muster?

They were highly observant religious Catholics (no matter their own short-comings), though they clearly understood the importance of church-state separation.


While I agree with epressed intense concern re: those who advocate a dominionist theocratic outlook, one really needs to be cautious about blanket religious bigotry.

[totodeinhere]

218. Or Jimmy Carter? n/t

[bobhuntsman]

189. k+r!!

[Warpy]

192. Saying god told you to run for office

should be an automatic disqualification on reason of insanity.

One of the few things we had left that made this country decent to live in is the firm separation between church and state.

That's the other disqualification, right there. The godly always seem to want to push their dogma onto the rest of us. No thanks, fellas.

Unlike you, I do respect the pious to the point that I realize they have a right to believe whatever will get them through a dark and lonely night.

They don't have a right to get into government and use it to push the rest of us around and I will fight them to my last breath.

[penndragon69]

193. I'm a proud ATHEIST

and i agree 100%.

[cleanhippie]

199. What is the difference between "highly" religious and just "regular" religious?

Don't ALL of them believe things that are not grounded in reality?

[patrice]

201. Oh, that's refreshing someone on DU admitting their bias up front. +1

[RobertSeattle]

202. I am against all tEaVangelIcaLs

[patrice]

209. WITH you on that! They confuse others and themselves; that pretty much fits the definition of evil.

They co-opt the uniquely personal relationship to truth, replace it with their ALEC-type template, get people hooked on their particular brand of self-congratulatory mutual masturbation and then run out and (if the last 10 years are any example and I do mean to include 9/11 itself in that reference) kill people.

Maybe Evangelization (PAULINE Christianity) IS the Anti-Christ. It certainly seems to have failed to notice that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have DIED FOR OUR SINS.

[cleanhippie]

226. What are those?

Aren't they christians, too?

[patrice]

205. Many religious are "utterly deceived" blasphemers.They are mistaken about that which they proclaim.

That mistake is only about them, what they are in error about; it is not about any other thing that may or may not be True.

The only way to "know" The Truth is to discover what you can find organically encoded in the verb known as "you" and in the events you call your life, even then it is still necessary to submit to what, if it approximates anything that we could refer to as "God", IS beyond yourself. If you don't have this stuff honestly clarified, organizations of any type only interfere with that discovery. And even if you somehow manage to clarify yourself, you still need to be diligent about that in any relationship to any organization.

Because we are talking about the non-rational, All words about or related to the definition of something that we refer to as "God" are more or less in error and that includes this statement.

These issues have lead me to prioritize what Paulo Freire has to say about how "true words" = "praxis".

Sat Nam!

[valerief]

207. Dare I say, "Amen!" nt

[totodeinhere]

215. I agree with your analysis except that we need to make it clear that we have

the First Amendment in this country so the people that you described have a perfect right to their beliefs and they have a perfect right to run for president of they want to. And their supporters have a right to vote for them. But of course at the same time you and I have the right to oppose them and advocate against them and vote against them.

[DissedByBush]

217. Jimmy Carter?

His sister was trying to get Harvey Milk to "accept Jesus" to "cure" his homosexuality.

[Fire Walk With Me]

219. Agree and Recommend as the loudly "religious" are just bullies with self-justification.

[Bonn1997]

220. I would discriminate against ALL religious

candidates (not just the highly religious). But that would leave me with no one to vote for!

[inna]

227. K&R!

What's truly bigoted and deeply harmful to the society is anti-secular sentiments and pro-religiosity voiced by the so-called political leaders.

[trud]

228. I guess the OP is not voting for Obama. n/t

[bluestateguy]

232. I'm assuming you were not a supporter of Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton

I only discriminate against the highly religious if they come from the wrong religion and have wacked out beliefs.

[housewolf]

233. Me too

I highly, highly, HIGHLY disapprove of religiosity in government

Maybe I'm just am old and have yesteryear's values, but I strongly believe that religiosity is a private matter and DOES NOT belong in government. The first election I really remember was John Kennedy's in 1960 where his Catholicism was strongly called into question, and perhaps the arguments from then have stayed with me throughout the years. I basically think that folks who aren't in the clergy should keep their religion to themselves or in private conversations.

Government is supposed to be for ALL THE PEOPLE. It's impossible to believe that someone who openly spouts (or worse yet, evangelizes) their religion can possible be available to treat all the people in an even, fair way and work for the benefit of all.

I don't have any problem with outward displays of religion for individuals who are not public servants, such as ministerial garb, muslim headscarves, clothing worn by nuns, etc. But when it comes to governmental officials talking their religion, I think it's wrong, regardless of the religion they are spouting.

[KansDem]

239. The "highly religious" do tend to put the kibosh on the Enlightenment. (nt)

[marlakay]

253. Agree...and wanted to rec but it was started

yesterday!

I can't believe someone who believes like Michelle & Rick can even get that close to running for office...

[tonekat]

256. And I'll do the same as the O/P N/T

[Zax2me]

259. You mean highly Christian religious? Yea, you kinda do.

You mentioned Muslims only in the context of them being oppressed.
As if there are no 'highly religious' Muslims - and we know all to well that is not true.
BTW, you think things are bad for atheists and gay/lesbian community under a 'highly religious' President as you describe?
Look around the world, see how other religions that run govts treat them.
Yea, like that.
Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.