The Bashing threads

[toddaa]

The rancur over religious topics on DU has become troubling. We have a man in the White House who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, the vast destruction of the earth, and the impoverishment of many millions, and yet here we are playing the one upmanship victimization game over spiritual matters.

The Taoist philosopher Zhuangzi wrote extensively about the limitations of personal knowledge. He taught that trying to comprehend the limitless Tao with our limited mind was futile. At some point you just have to accept the fact that you're not as smart as you think you are and neither am I. He also taught that no matter how vast your knowledge, you will never be able to perceive the world as another perceives it. Once you understand this principle, you stop saying things like "Christians believe a fairy tale" and "Atheists are religious fanatics."

[trotsky]

1. So how do we combat the religious right?

If someone believes that there REALLY WAS a worldwide flood that killed everyone and everything except for a dude, his family, and a pair of every animal that floated in a big boat for 40 days, I'm sorry, but they believe in a fairy tale.

I understand where you're coming from, but if you simply shrug your shoulders and say, "No one really knows, it's all good" then you're legitimizing not only atheism and liberal Christianity but the whacked-out conservative crap too.

There has to be SOME kind of standard by which our "beliefs" are allowed to influence public policy.

[toddaa]

3. It's not a religious fight

It's as simple as that. Battling the religious right is not a theological discussion. It's not even about religion. What they want is absolute political power. Whether they use gain that power in the name of Jesus Christ, or Mohammed, or Karl Marx really is immaterial to the discussion.

They are unified, we are not.

[saltpoint]

5. Those who practice under the same umbrella have a --

-- bit of a problem, then.

Because they're fighting over the same Jesus. To name one key example.

Bill Moyers' Jesus doesn't sound like Jim Dobson's Jesus to me at all.

But it's the same guy from the same NT texts.

The problem is not in DU's set.

[trotsky]

7. They USE their religion to gain that power.

But because religion is "off limits" for critical discussion, they can effectively silence or demonize their opposition by wrapping themselves in God and the flag.

[LoZoccolo]

4. Your conclusion at the end doesn't follow from the rest.

Also, attacking religion is the surest way to entrench the religious right at this point.

Try to figure out why I'd say this. It'll help you think clearer about the problem of the religious right.

[trotsky]

8. So doing everything short of attacking their religion has worked well

to this point?

[LoZoccolo]

9. I guess the answer to that question is "no"

But only because we haven't been doing everything short of attacking their religion. It's a false premise.

Besides, attacking their religion absolutely will not work. I've looked at the hard facts; you might not have, but you might be able to guess what I found out by looking at them.

Think some more about this. This is a serious issue, and deserves more than the illogical inclinations you find yourself obeying when you're angry.

[trotsky]

14. I think it's rather arrogant to assume you know something won't work

when it's never been tried.

The basic problem is that people are not taught critical thinking skills. They'll fall for just about anything if it's wrapped up in God or the flag. And if you block off one area - say, religion - and declare, "Nope, no critical analysis of this is allowed where feelings just MIGHT get hurt", well I just happen to think that only exacerbates the problem.

But if you've got the "hard facts" and have figured out just exactly what we need to do, please feel free to share.

[LoZoccolo]

16. Here's how I know.

First, the religious right isn't as much of a lock as people think. 39% of evangelical Christians are Democrats (Pew Research study), 21% of white evangelicals voted for Kerry (exit polls), and 33% total voted for Kerry (don't have a source for this total number, but it makes sense when viewed with the white evangelical number). When we look back at how we got this impression that the religious right has got a lock on this vote, we really can't find much that's hard-and-fast; we find some well-funded organizations, some outspoken leaders, some politicians using religious references and wedge issues, the corporate media simplifying the story, some people on the left reinforcing it as blowback, and then maybe some personal anecdotes that tend to fit (and some that don't fit tossed out - the atheists on DU should all know that there are people of faith here due to the controversies that erupt during discussions of religion, yet this seems to be forgotten time and time again).

Second, the Republicans picked the strategy of associating themselves with religion, and trying to associate Democrats with anti-religion. This is a strategy they picked as one they felt could let them win. Would you deny that it's been successful for them? Then why would we let them fight according to this plan they've picked? They knew when they picked it that some people on the left would take the role the Republicans chose for them, fighting according to their strategy. We do their work for them when we take the role they've picked for us.

To illustrate, let's look at the issue of "moral values" in the last election, which is why I think a lot of people here have gone full-tilt against religion. In 1996, the percentage of people listing that as their biggest concern was 45%. In 2000, it was 35%. In 2004, it was 22% (I believe this was in The Economist). It's actually a waning way of getting people to vote for the Republicans, yet they emphasized it. I believe that this is because the blowback they can cause by getting us to overreact can potentially pull a portion of our evangelical bloc across the aisle.

Third, paranoia over the loss of freedom of religion, I believe, served as the original impetus of the religious right anyways, and they still use this paranoia to recruit for activism and get funding anyways. You'll find a lot of it dates back to paranoia about communists banning religion, with McCarthy, the John Birch Society, etcetera. "under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance through a campaign by the Knights of Columbus to contrast us with the officially atheist Soviet Union. I heard someone who formerly worked for Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority on the radio, and he was saying that they would never send out positive fundraising letters because they just don't attract funds. I guess you could say that this is probably the most reliable indicator that it doesn't work, as it hasn't in the past, and the first two reasons I give are projections of what I think would probably happen if the left was associated with an anti-religious doctrine.

[trotsky]

19. So if the religious right is such a tiny minority,

explain how anti-gay marriage initiatives passed so overwhelmingly - EVERYWHERE. Sorry, I don't buy it. Because their religious bigotry goes totally unchecked (and at this point I'd like to note that being critical of religion is NOT the same as being anti-religion, as you assume), they basically have free reign over the easily led electorate.

By not confronting this religious nonsense head-on, it only grows stronger. We aren't going to out-Jesus the Republicans. *I* think that most people in this country DON'T want a religiously insane agenda forced on them, and that only by illustrating its true nature and reaching out to the secular middle will we get anywhere.

[LoZoccolo]

20. I'm not saying they're a tiny minority.

I didn't say that at all. They're not huge, but they're enough to put the Republicans over.

As the results showed, some Democrats had to have voted for those bills too. Will they be voting for the rest of the Republican agenda next time? Will the next Republican candidate enjoy a more solid mandate of 60%? If we stick with a strategy of outright offense, more of them will find it easy to switch; I think the Republicans are banking on this strategy, and banking on us reacting the way we have for the past few months. As I said, they chose the strategy - why allow them that?

But I've made my case; I think the numbers and positioning speak for themselves, and you can review them at your leisure.

[trotsky]

21. What has been the Democratic "outright offense" against religion?

The Democratic Convention *I* watched featured every speaker ending with "God Bless America." What exactly have Democrats done to attack religion, or even criticize it? Where are all the ATHEIST Democratic candidates?

In light of this, I'd say "the numbers" show that by remaining silent and letting the Republicans set an uncontested religious agenda with our implied consent, we're suffering at the ballot box. Many elections have shown that people will vote for you even if they don't agree with you because at least they know where you stand. THAT'S what the Republicans have succeeded at.

But hey, if you think you've got it all figured out, that somehow we need to out-Jesus the Republicans, good luck.

[LoZoccolo]

22. I didn't say there was one as a party.

But you seem to be advocating one on the part of grassroots activists, or at least defending it.

I advocate separation of church and state, by the way. Please don't imply that I don't.

[trotsky]

23. What you said was:

If we stick with a strategy of outright offense

How can we "stick with a strategy" that the party hasn't even tried?

Look, I'm an atheist. A member of a religious minority. I know that neither major party really gives a shit about me. Most Republicans hate me, most Democrats wish I would shut up and go away. I'm just trying to make myself be heard, to make suggestions and point out that whatever our current strategy is (and it sure isn't one of religious criticism), IT ISN'T WORKING.

[More Than A Feeling]

24. excellent point, battling the religious right by

trying to destroy their religion (and to them, criticism is like that, even if it isn't to most people) is far too immense a task and it may be impossible.

[H2O Man]

6. Their belief in a

"fairy tale" should be no more troubling than a four year old's belief in Santa.

What we need to be concerned with is the aggressive, organized right wing republican movement, including its effort to shove their fairy tales down your throat and my throat.

In the past 48 hours, there have been several threads that have found common ground among many (perhaps most) of the DU atheists and theists. A few of the less mature on both sides want to stir the pot, and unsettle any alliance, but this is because they are disturbed and not yet capable of stability. We need to build a foundation that withstands their imbalance. Then we move on to the greater society.

[saltpoint]

2. Toddaa some of us just may never reach the point where --

-- we like being lectured to.

In most locales, there are any number of churches, temples, etc. where folks who wish to may go and worship and believe as they choose.

I aint stoppin' 'em. To my knowledge, no DUer blocks those folks' entry into those venues.

On these boards, however, a variety of opinions prevail. No one here is obliged to accept someone's else's private religious experience.

Perhaps those so inclined toward a religious practice might want to zip on down to their church and temple and do it there.

When they do it HERE, it often is authoritarian in tone and "lecturish" -- and gets a correspondingly negative response.

[arwalden]

28. Well Said...

<< When they do it HERE, it often is authoritarian in tone and "lecturish" -- and gets a correspondingly negative response. >>

Clearly there is an element here that feels ENTITLED to behave as you described... and they feel ENTITLED to do so with impunity... and they feel ENTITLED to submissive respect simply because they do these things in the name of their religion.

I'm still torn whether to feel anger or amusement when the response to any negative word about their religion or its leaders is to cry "foul!" and claim to be the persecuted victims of "bashing".

Which reminds me... I always find it peculiar whenever someone from the religious right (and even a few religious zealots who claim to be liberal) make the argument that their religious freedoms are being violated when people fight against the bigotry being promoted by the religion or its leaders.

[housewolf]

10. The question is...

what do we gain, as individuals or as a group, by the incessent bashing amongst ourselves of those whom we disagree with?

Sure, it blows off some steam and creates a sense of comradarie with the other bashers. And as always, criticizing others always makes one feel superior and righteous in our own beliefs.

But in all honesty, how does that serve us in accomplishing our goals?

Is it possible that bashing and criticizing and demeaning others more likely serves to seep our energy and keep us from actually acomplishing something?

I imagine I'll get flamed for these questions but I respectfully ask that before you dash off a flaming post defending your rights to bash that you give at least a cursory thought to the questions I posed.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. No flames from me

I think that flame wars about concepts of God (or no God) aren't going to change anyone's opinions.

What we need to realize is that the so-called "religious right" is merely using religion to put forth their agenda. A recent thread on the "Christian Coalition" in Alabama being exposed as getting money from gambling interests and sending out emails telling a lie shows the hypocrisy in the movement.

What we need to spend our time doing in GD at least is to come up with more sources that show this hypocrisy and expose the true agenda of these groups. I think we have a real chance at opening some people's eyes to what is going on if we do; if we spend our time arguing, nothing constructive gets accomplished.

[Tux]

13. An idea

Since fundies feel threatened by modern civilization, it's hard to reason with them especially when they have been brain washed to think that all progressives are theist commies who would kill babies, destroy the Bible, and force them to be atheists. We can't reason with them but we can't agree with them either.

There is no single nor easy answer to this. The best we can do is show them their leaders for what they are: greedy pigs wanting power.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. Yes

they must be shown that their leaders don't really have their interests-or the interest of their religion-at heart.

[T_i_B]

25. No flames from me either!

I agree with you totally

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. I tell you what gets really bashed on DU

Fairy tales. The moment someone's stories are compared to them, it's taken as a great insult, by everyone. These are our folk stories, people - part of our culture! (OK, my culture, anyway - I'm European). Since when did they become the worst thing you could compare tales to?

[YankeyMCC]

17. Some wisdom here

I happen to be reading Tao Te Ching (translation by james legge) out of intellectual curiosity.

And what you said "..no matter how vast your knowledge, you will never be able to perceive the world as another perceives it. Once you understand this principle, you stop saying things like "Christians believe a fairy tale" and "Atheists are religious fanatics." "

Puts the ideas I've been reading there into perspective I can appreciate.

As an atheist I know that I know the bible is a fictionalize account at most, perhaps total fiction and I know I see no evidence of the existence of a god as commonly defined by xians. As an atheist I know that my world view and moral code works well for me and it appears to me to be the best world view to pass on to my children and I'm hopeful for the community when others develop and live by similar world views and moral codes.

I do however think it is a "religious fight", not "religion vs no-religion" but good theology vs bad theology.

Now right now my fellow atheists are thinking some rather nasty things about me. Well some of them...Maybe. ;)

But the fact is many people are religious and I do know (at least I know that I know ;) )that people who are members of religions and theists in general develop world views that work for them and moral codes that are often similar to mine in goals and practical affects on the people and world around them.

The problem is when people like Falwell and Bush use religion to justify bad theology (creating an American religion, turning America into the idol for example). We fight that by uniting.

The religious angst us fight it with good theology. Concentrating on caring for the poor, peacemaking etc...

The non-religious angst us fight it with good ideas and setting examples, demonstrating what we are all about and the existence and credibility of the development of good values in the absence of religion.

That brings us together instead of divides us. That changes the debate from "religion vs nonreligion" or "atheist vs theist" to "good values" vs "bad values" and "good results" vs "bad results". It teaches that good values can come from anywhere.

[onager]

18. Not that we are facing a new problem, exactly...

"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion.

Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious.

On the other hand, they do less easily rise against him, believing that he has the gods on his side."--Aristotle, "Politics"

Quoted in "2000 Years Of Disbelief" by James A. Haught.

[progressoid]

26. True - how many times have we heard b* supporters say,

"he's a good, God-fearing man". His 'faith' has given him a LOT of passes. People that wouldn't think of giving someone openly secular the leeway the people of 'faith' get.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. From a tactical point of view, a fundamentalist will shut down if

you tell him that God is a "fairy tale." They have been thoroughly taught to be wary of atheism and even liberal religion.

You can only combat their political efforts. Fundamentalism is not necessarily political: it wasn't until the Reagan administration. Before that, fundies tended to avoid politics entirely.