eom

for a Humanist?

but I would guess that they would classify them as atheists.

closet, and had no affect whatsoever on other lives. I will say that I am pretty leery of any politician who feels it necessary to tell me his religion, how long he has been married, how many kids he has. Honestly, I don't care. All of those things can be cast aside at any time. I want to know a politicians's policies, what has he or she done so far, what is wanted in the future.

While I would like to see religion become much less of an issue in the american political scene, I think that liberal/progressive religious people are critical for working on issues that we all hold dear.

I would like to see people supported for what they stand for. If religion plays a positive role in that position, then that's great. If it plays a negative role, then it should be challenged.

But whether one believes or not will hopefully become much less relevant.

I admire the pitifully few bastions of individual religious chapters that struggle to put the wellbeing of humanity over gaudy sensationalism and amassed power, but they are the exception, not the rule.

With ample support from charlatans, hucksters, grifters, followers and believers, religion has become a vehicle of avarice, hate and intolerance. Look no farther than the people and groups who point to religion to validate their particular brand of crazy. Today, the death bell for religion has already been rung when rightwing extremists claim it as their sole property and do not welcome anyone else into their sacred clubhouse.

In the eyes of anyone who is not a conservative fundamentalist, their experience with most religious enterprizes is anti everything they support, so why bother. This is especially true for young people who are turned off by the judgemental intolerance and indifference to the suffering of others, the ostentatious displays of wealth that are more important than the plight of people in their communities who are homeless and hungry.

if they could be clearly distinguished from other religious groups and given the support and attention they need.

They are the exception in part because they work quietly, don't generally grandstand and do not have political victory as their primary cause.

Let's start making clear differentiations and marginalize those that use religion as a vehicle for evil.

They are doing some of this one their own, but we can help by pushing back and shining the light of the groups who are on our side.

I think the tide is turning and we will see more progressive/liberal religious, interfaith and religious/spiritual groups forming.

Lot of young people have left their affiliations, but many still acknowledge that they belief or are spiritual. It's important to embrace them.

Replace it with a spirituality and solidarity amongst all people who genuinely care about the wellbeing of others without needing the compelling threat of hellfire as the singular motivating influence to embrace their basic humanity. No religion is needed when people can welcome everyone to live in peaceful coexistence with their neighbors and join together in making their communities better places in live while and promoting equality in the world around us.

I would love to see an increase in non-religious/secular groups who work together for others, but there is a long way to go.

The assumption that religious people do good deeds merely because they wish to avoid hell is erroneous, imo. While not true of all, I think that many religious people embrace civil rights, economic justice, peace and doing the right thing not out of fear, but out of the belief that it's the right thing to do.

You may not need religion to accomplish your goals, but others may find great support and community there.

The ideal would be to allow everyone to pursue their goodness regardless of whether they embrace religion or not. Having it just one way, whichever that may be, would not be an effective solution, imo.

The clear implication of which is that without the fear of hellfire those people asking the question would be killing and raping or think that they would.

I know we have had this discussion before and I know there are people that do believe that their religious beliefs are the only things that keep them from committing heinous crimes, but I truly believe that those people are sociopaths who would be evil with or without religion.

I think they are clearly the exceptions.

How do you answer the question?

I firmly believe that given the chance the great majority of people are pretty decent but a lot of them get corrupted by horrible infective memes such as the more fundamentalist versions of religion.

Normally I say "Because I don't want to, that's not who I am." which leaves them gaping like fish quite often.

and I believe that to be the truth.

If their religion gives them strength and guidance, that's ok with me, but I don't think it's necessary for the vast majority of people.

Again there are very negative forms of religion that thrive on punishment and evil, but that is just one type.