I'm a Christian.

Can I be a Democrat too?
Just expressing my fustration at the virulently anti-religious people who attack religious people for believing in "mythology" and "superstition". I wish people like that (I'm obviously talking about a very few here) would be more tolerant. In conclusion, please don't flame me down!

I am ANTI Muslim and ANTI Judaism as well ..

But I still love me mummy .....

I exercise it as well ...

My ANTI religionist position is well founded on 30 centuries of world history .... I neednt apologize for it ....

And: of course I love my mommy ....

('Me Mummy' = 'My Mommy', with a british accent)

I am an anti-ANTI-Muslim and anti-ANTI-Judaism as well...

On the other hand, I'm a straight anti-Republican. I've got no time for those bastards at all.

They're entitled to believe what they want, just as you are.

They are obviously directing their ire at the wrong person (a religious person of the left) but I would honestly try not to pay much attention to it.

For the record, I'm a liberal and a Christian. I've seen those kinds of things, too, and a lot of hostility. But I also know some very wonderful and kind atheists and I have had great conversations with them about religion, etc.

I guess I'm trying to say, don't let 'em get you down.

I figured that's what everyone would say.
Thanks, anyway, though! :grouphug:

been hurt by the use of religion against them by others. I've been there and done that and moved beyond it. I believe in "God" or a "force" or some kind of higher intelligence out there somewhere, but in don't believe that we, in any kind of meaningful way, can comprehend that higher power.

I also believe that there are many paths to that higher power. If Christianity is your path, then don't let others' hostilities get you down.

There are too many people out there who are using Christianity to subjgate the rest of us. Their version of Christianity has nothing that I can see in them of the teachings of Jesus. I think that a lot of the hostility you see comes from the anger and frustration that comes from the perversions of those teachings.

You will find there are more than 2 of us who post here.

on edit: The correct answer is, " Of course you can still be a Democrat. The ones who say we can't be both are the far RW super crazy conservative fundamentalist ** supporters.

go with it for a lot of christians (no, not necessarily you). I have no prob with any religion at all, as long as it is not being imposed on me or others... whether that be through intimidation, preferential treatment given to anyone due to their beliefs, hate directed at others for their lack of belief, or the statements of entitlement that seem to come from with some beleivers (i.e. having a "right" to put up 10 commandment monuments on public land). As long as I am not being imposed on, I have no probs at all.

There is a difference between calling religion "mythology" and "superstition" and attacking religious people. By equating the two, you are virtually guaranteeing you will get flamed.

The bottom line is, how much do you want to restrict the free speech of non-religious people? Are we not supposed to utter any language which may offend a sensitive theist's ears? Shall we bring back blasphemy laws? Where exactly should we draw the line where religious criticism is no longer allowed?

(no pun intended) They have as much right to spout off about religion as much as we have a right to spout off against it... that is, the more I (for example) talk about how strange Christianity is, the more right they have to talk about how right it is. Which is why I usually keep my mouth shut and just avoid the issue. Personally I think tact dictates that people keep their beliefs (or lack of) to themselves and let people think what they may.

Not disagreeing with you, just adding a caveat.

On edit: my work day is done, so I won't be able to respond till I get home...

Plank, meet speck. Speck, meet plank.
Sel

non-religious and anti-religious to be able to speak freely too. I am all about freedom of speech.

I'm a Christian who works with a local (big) atheist society to help with separation of church and state issues. That's a biggie for me, too.

You can call me whatever you want! ;-)

On some boards, though, I've got into some pretty vicious arguments with people who referred to religion in those terms. You're obviously allowed to say anything you want. I just wish people would be more tolerant though. :shrug:

How far should "tolerance" extend?

Religious tolerance currently lets Christian Scientists withhold medical care from their children. Is that OK?

So that's why the question becomes, where do you draw the line?

over faith, not a argument which results in both sides saying "Youre wrong and going to hell/deluding yourself."

without the intent to attack, especially on this board? You have a few who want to actually debate the mythological dimension of religion, which is fine, but then you have others who have, for one reason or another, a chip on their shoulders. The word "superstition" itself basically ensures that someone is going to to feel insulted, because the speaking is putting anyone who practices that "superstition" on the same level as a baseball player who seriously believes that putting one sock on before the other will let them win ballgames.

to what extent do you want to censor religious speech? If I believe that Christianity has a large number of followers who are dangerous because of how the belief system is structured and how the bible is incredibly ambiguous when it comes to "morality," is that an attack? What if I believe that Christianity is a total crock with almost no redeeming features - is that an attack?

Where is the line drawn? That's all I want to know. I think the fact that religion has been so totally exempted from anything but mild criticism is one of the reasons why it's causing so many problems today.

But that's the overall feeling I've gotten from people on DU who generalize Christians as a "religion of hate" with "no redeeming charachteristics" and "all the followers are antithetical to their faith".

You're able to tell that people use accurate language ONLY for the purpose of insulting others? Wow! I need to come to you for lottery numbers and racing picks.

The superstitious belief ITSELF (to use your words) "basically insure that someone is going to feel insulted". I don't understand why my use of language is more suspect than someone else who tells me that I'm "going to hell" for not believing or for being gay.

So why should I not be permitted to call it what it is? Why do you get to dictate to anyone?

Should the fact that someone actually DOES have a chip-on-their-shoulder mean that you get to determine which words they may or may not use? (Gee! What an awesome resonsibility! It must be great to be you!)

-- Allen

as mythology is rude.

Mythology is a key aspect of nearly all religions. Do you deny that?

Again I am sure you know this.

So this will be my last post to you on this topic. I am not interested in playing your game. I have respect for your right to believe whatever it is you believe. You should do the same for me and leave it at that.

Refering to some ones beliefs as a myth is rude and I am absolutely positive that you know that. If you didn't before you do now.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=myth

A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.

That definition says NOTHING about the veracity of the myth. Referring to someone else's religious beliefs as mythology is semantically accurate and should not be taken as an insult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid

Myth
The word myth in sociology is a story that is important for a group but not verifiable. Lack of verifiability does not necessarily indicate falsehood; "Hindu myth" may refer to historic events for which no objective record exists.

In common use, myth refers to a story which is believed to be false.

Except in rare cases (e.g. urban myth), the common meaning should neither be used, nor assumed. Myth is perfectly valid in an article about religious beliefs; however, do not use phrases such as "evolution is a myth." One might say "The Descent of Man was one of the central myths in 20th century biology."

Sometimes people object to the use of myth to describe stories which they believe strongly in. One should be careful to avoid implying that a myth may be invalid.

also

if you doubt this is not the case then why all the sites and books w/titles like *Myths about Homosexuality*..*Dispelling common myths about Evolution*...etc...the meaning of Myth is quite plain in those situations...false beliefs...

and

and according to dictionary.com
Myth
3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.

4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: “German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth” (Leon Wolff).

There's nothing quite like being put in your place by having someone stick out their tongue at you and stomped their feet as they angrily storm out of the room!

You must be feeling pretty humble now, huh? :eyes:

>> I have respect for your right to believe whatever it is you believe. <<

Except when it comes to your use of words that she disapproves of.

>> Refering to some ones beliefs as a myth is rude <<

So in other words, if you don't accept HER premise that it's not a myth, and if you DARE to express your OWN point of view, then you're just being rude!

Trotsky, can you think of a better way to shut off a discussion than by INVENTING ways to be "offended" by every position and every word that the other side might use?

I guess it's a coping mechanism... it's easier for some to avoid rather than to face facts, or to have to deal with others who have a different perspective on things.

Here's a good example from the abortion debate. There are two terms floating around in that debate: "anti-choice" and "pro-abortion". There is a perceived accuracy on one side and a perceived inaccuracy on the other side of each of these terms. No matter what side you happen to be on, these terms do nothing to further or even correctly frame the debate. They are terms designed to incite and misdirect. Referring to the doctrine of Christianity as a "myth" and its rituals as "superstitions" is in the same vein. You can call it accuracy but it really frames the argument in a negative way. It doesn't bother me all that much but I can certainly see the problem with the terms.

...ought to be isolate themselves in their coccoons so as to avoid being exposed to those "hateful" atheists and other doubters and non-believers.

Your comparison was a good one, and the similarities are not lost on me... they never have been. But, when it comes right down to it, it seems that the problem you describe is, THEIR PROBLEM... and something that THEY must learn to cope with.

I'm not going to let overwrought Christians redefine, or label, or prohibit the use of perfectly legitimate words.

Knock yourself out! Take a stand! Lord knows I will take a stand on certain issues, I'm just trying to help you understand the opposite side of the fence.

At times, your efforts to explain things to me sounded less like actual help, and more like advocacy and making their arguments for them, or like you were being one of their apologists.

I'll take you at your word that you were just trying to explain it to me and that you were just trying to be helpful.

Yep, I'll take a stand. Thanks for the encouragement! :hi:

An opinion that religion is false is just that - an opinion. For far too long, religion has been too powerful to criticize openly, and I strongly believe that has been the reason so many horrible things have been done in its name. The ability to dissent, to call foul, is absolutely crucial in any debate. We see the right wing suppressing it for liberals in the political sphere - I don't think Christians in general have a right to do it in the religious sphere.

Check out Joseph Campbell's The Power of Myth. Campbell argues that myth plays a critical and positive part in our lives regardless of whether we are conciously religious.

Granted, most people who say religion is myth here tend to be purveyors of flamebait.

suggesting that I'm not permitted to call a myth a myth. Why should someone's belief in a myth merit MORE respect and deference than my NOT believing in the myth?


Are the believers more important? From what you've said here and in other thread, it certainly appears that way.

It's really a non-issue IMO, and like a troll tactic you increase its power by acknowledging it.

But then, I'm not religious.

I was much happier when I was still one of those. :-)

Just like Jesus!

I'm a Christian and a progressive, too. Don't worry about what a small minority on DU say.

Either it applies to everyone or it applies to no one.

I believe it applies to everyone, and that's where it begins and ends for me. Beyond that, everyone has the right to believe as they believe, regardless of what you or I think of it.


MDN

else. Why should you feel bad? You have a right to your beliefs just like everyone else here. Some people get snippy about it, but who cares? They can no more prove you're wrong then they can prove that they're right. This is one of those things that we just have to take on faith, or not, whatever the case may be.

I'm a Christian. I feel safe in my convictions that yes, Jesus was sent here to help bring human beings to salvation, teach us to live in accord with everyone else, to be merciful and kind to the weak and less fortunate, and to 'judge not, lest ye be judged'.

Why would you have any doubts about whether or not you can be a Christian AND a democrat? That makes no sense to me. But I can see people being good Christians and being republican as well. Moderate republicans, not the fundie crazies who are jealous that they aren't the ones waving the swords and cutting off heads. You can't say you believe in faith, hope, and charity and not have it carry over to your political beliefs. That's where I think everything is going wrong. Anymore, people are using religion to justify the most Ungodly behavior. That's not Christianity or human decency. That's not what God is supposed to mean to us. That's not what God, anybody's God, is supposed to mean. God gives life (I believe in evolution, I don't think of God as some kind of Amazing Kreskin). God wants us to share. And yes, we are our brother's keeper. What is there in those ideals that make you wonder if you can be a democrat and a Christian?

Sorry, I was just feeling fustrated at people who get a kick out of putting down my beliefs. They're just as bad as the Talibornagains.

convincing though.

feel like I don't have a place to be. I'm left out of religion by Talibornagains, and left out of the Deomcratic Party by their atheist equivalent. One of my atheist freinds told me that "Being Christian and Republican go hand in hand, just like being Democrat and athiest".

When I first started posting here sometime in the winter/spring of 2001, no one ever admitted to being religious. The anti Christian diatribe was as bad as it is now. Everyone posted as if there were no religious people in the democratic party at all. I and a few other people kind of decided to speak up and remind people they were taking an awful lot for granted if they assumed that we were all atheists, agnostics or some variation. One of the first people to speak out was a Muslim poster who is no longer here.
The truth is that most democrats like most people in this country are religious to some extent and the majority of the party is Christian.
I am very open to other religions and I am not judgmental about someone being an atheist. My family is full of them. But for some reason there are a lot of non- believers who feel a need to tell others how delusional they are. :shrug:
Of course there are many others who are just as respectful to others as they can be.
All you can really do is refuse to sink to the level of the proselytizers.

>> I am not judgmental about someone being an atheist. <<

As long as they SIT DOWN and SHUT UP, eh? And as long as they just don't call a myth a myth... because it might offend the believers. As long as someone can control the framing of the debate then they will always win the debate. If they can restrict the use of accurate language, then they are well on their way to winning the debate. If they can convince others that words like "myth" and "superstition" are HATE SPEECH :eyes: then they've effectively silenced any opposing points of view.

I'm a Christian and I'm not offended by the comments made around here, but you can't tell me that you don't know that the words "myth" and "superstition" are loaded terms. The definition of superstition is "An irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear". More definitions for myth are "A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology." and "A fictitious story, person, or thing". For a Christian, none of these definitions accurately describes our faith. You can make your case for these being accurate descriptions of Christianity, but I'll never agree with you. If you want to avoid arguments perhaps you should substitute "doctrine" for "myth" and "ritual" for "superstition". It would make for a more friendly discussion. I could just as easily refer to Atheism as a myth and its results as superstitions. I choose not to so as to avoid useless anger in what should be a thoughtful discussion.

>> For a Christian, none of these definitions accurately describes our faith. <<

Perhaps for you (and other Christians,) these words do not accurately describe them... for YOU. But they do accurately describe it (or any religion) for me.

So what makes you and your religion so special that you get to prohibit me from using perfectly legitimate words? Are you better than I am?

I have little doubt that if "doctrine" and "ritual" were to be adopted, that many delicate sorts would object to these words as well.

As it stands right now, lacking the ability to PROHIBIT the use of these words, many overwrought Christians have taken to the absurd tactic of labeling the words as "hate speech" and those who use them as "haters". :eyes:

>> I could just as easily refer to Atheism as a myth and its results as superstitions. <<

Sure you could say whatever you please... but that would indicate that you don't know what the word "atheist" actually means. But, yes... you could say that. I wouldn't stop you.

Wow, there's some anger there! If you'll notice, I didn't attempt to prohibit anything at all. You can say whatever you want and you can believe all of your definitions to be accurate as well. The only point I was making is that there are certain words which help to contribute to a good discussion and there are others which do not. You can use words like myth and superstition in relation to Christianity, but don't get upset when some people take offense to the terms. I'm not trying to change your definitions, I'm just trying to fill you in on what emotions you may be illiciting by using them. I'm not a censor, nor do I want to be.

>> Wow, there's some anger there! <<

Oh, I'm sorry, Ando.

What emotion would be more appropriate from someone whenever others are trying to restrict them from using accurate and truthful words? Should I react less intensely whenever someone merely makes the suggestion?

If anger is inappropriate, please tell me how I should react. :eyes:

>> If you'll notice, I didn't attempt to prohibit anything at all. You can say whatever you want and you can believe all of your definitions to be accurate as well. <<

No, technically you can't "prohibit" anything... you just suggested that we non-believers acquiesce to these absurd demands and use softer words like "ritual" and "doctrine".

>> The only point I was making is that there are certain words which help to contribute to a good discussion and there are others which do not. <<

Yes, Ando. I understood your point. But I'm not about to verbally hobble myself to satisfy the vanities of every overwrought Christian who take offense at clinical terms.

>> You can use words like myth and superstition in relation to Christianity, but don't get upset when some people take offense to the terms. <<

I'm not upset when someone takes offense. I offend them. They offend me. We're even. --- When I *do* get upset is when they (or others) try to label innocuous terms as HATE SPEECH, or when they try to prevent me from using those terms at all.

>> I'm not trying to change your definitions, I'm just trying to fill you in on what emotions you may be illiciting by using them. I'm not a censor, nor do I want to be. <<

Thanks for trying to fill-me-in. I appreciate that, but ultimately they are responsible for their OWN emotions.

and perhaps superstition, as in the face of Jesus appearing on a tortilla or making the sign of the cross every time one passes a Catholic church.

We have thought about these things, and have come to the conclusion that it is superstition and we have read the 'Bible and the history of Christianity and have come to the conclusion that it is indeed, mythology.

We have a right to say it, according to what we have researched.

You have a right to say it also, according to what you believe, or your faith in whatever religion or god you choose.

And that faith cannot be argued because faith cannot be argued and it is a useless path to take to try and do so.

However, disputing the various positions put forth, and presenting a different view should not be interpreted as bashing any one religion.

Or any one person's faith.

It is simply a different view.

What disturbs me is the assumption that all must "respect" anyone's faith. I don't think that is a wise assumptiong to make.

Obviously there is nothing that says that those who think otherwise need to "respect" the religion or the god, of anyone believer.

The very assumption that Christians possess something that others who do not believe in that particular god do not, can be interpreted as arrogance, although those who profess that as part of their faith, often fail to see how insulting it is to those who are living a life just as ethical or moral as they. There often seems to be an underlying elitism on their part that is definately worth disputing as a matter of defense.

over faith, like you said. That was kinda my point.

Yes and I have a right to hate others for the color of their skin, but I choose not to.

does not equal "hate".

These attempts to label ANY challenge to Christianity as "hate" are patently absurd. Efforts to squelch any others from expressing THEIR belief by labeling it as belittling "hate speech" is outrageous.

where some of them feel that they deserve additional respect and deference simply BECAUSE they are Christians. Many of them try to stifle the discussion and win the argument by incorrectly labeling ANY difference of opinion as "disrespectful" and "bashing" and "hate".

There are some Christians who, I admit, are bigoting racist idiots. *COUGH* Born-agains*COUGH* But that dosn't make it so we all are, which you seem to think. What I think of atheists as is just like Christians. Mostly, they are good people, except for a few morons who try to say that their faith is the only true one and thus turns people off it, just like Christianity. I don't believe that we should get special treatment because we're Christians. But I also don't believe atheists should get special treatment. We just souldn't go out of our way to insult each other's beliefs, which is what many on DU do, both Christians and atheists. Referring to someone's religion as "Myth" despite the definition, people will take offense. Referring to atheism as "Stupid" or whatever is equally likely to insult someone. We just shouldn't go out of our way to insult other people, that's all.
Okay, I'm done. </rant>

>> "Believe it or not, Arwalden, we're NOT all bigots" <<

Wow! Really??? :eyes: Thanks for sharing that, Catbert! I would have never known that if you hadn't told me. All this time, I thought every Christian was just part of some HUGE Borg collective.

>> There are some Christians who, I admit, are bigoting racist idiots. *COUGH* Born-agains*COUGH* But that dosn't make it so we all are, which you seem to think. <<

Is that what I think? Really? How do you know that?

>> What I think of atheists as is just like Christians. Mostly, they are good people, except for a few morons who try to say that their faith is the only true one and thus turns people off it, just like Christianity. <<

I'm not sure what that tortured syntax was supposed to mean, but it seems that you're trying to equate atheism with being a one true "faith"... and it's not. It's the absence of faith.

>> I don't believe that we should get special treatment because we're Christians. <<

We agree about that.

>> But I also don't believe atheists should get special treatment. <<

What special treatment would that be? NOT being told to sit-down and shut-up? That's "special treatment"??

>> We just souldn't go out of our way to insult each other's beliefs, which is what many on DU do, both Christians and atheists. Referring to someone's religion as "Myth" despite the definition, people will take offense. <<

That sounds like a personal problem. But it is a myth. Exactly how many legitimate words would you like to prohibit? What euphemism would you like to use instead of "myth"... and then HOW SOON will it be until the euphemism is considered to be insulting and the delicate folks will demand that it not be spoken either?

>> Referring to atheism as "Stupid" or whatever is equally likely to insult someone. We just shouldn't go out of our way to insult other people, that's all. <<

As far as I'm concerned, I have no problem with you saying that you think atheism is stupid. It might even be a good starter for a conversation... I might ask you to explain why you think it's stupid... but I certainly am not offended.

I understand what you're getting at. I understand that some people are so emotionally involved with their religion that they cannot differentiate the difference between IT and THEMSELVES. They consider an attack or criticism on IT to be a "personal" attack... when it reality it's not.

>> Okay, I'm done. </rant> <<

Okay, good rant. Feel better now? :-) I always do after a good rant.

-Atheism can be described as a "faith" that there isn't any God. So there.
-I don't believe that atheists should be told to sit down and shut up. I also would ask you to point out where I've said that...
- I wouldn't stop you even if I could from using the word "Myth" to describe Christianity, because I believe in freedom of speech. I do however, think it's insulting or could be insulting, so most people know to refrain from using it in reference to someone's religion because it just makes people angry. :wow:
Anyway, onto what I hope is an intelligent discussion. I say atheism is stupid. (No, I don't actually think that, but for the purposes of this excersize, let's say I do). You say... what?

>> -Atheism can be described as a "faith" that there isn't any God. So there. <<

"So there?" :eyes: What are you, twelve?

No, your assertion is incorrect. I do not have "faith" that that deities don't exist. That would be to presume that they do exist, and it would be to presume (incorrectly) that I'm taking it on "faith" or no evidence that they don't exist.

Atheism means that I have NO BELIEF in deities. It's not that I don't "believe in" deities whether or not they exist.

It is plainly and simply... NO BELIEF in deities, at all, period. I see no evidence that deities exist. Nobody has demonstrated to me that deities exist. Therefore I have NO BELIEF that deities exist. Why is this such a difficult concept for so many Christians to wrap their brains around?


>> -I don't believe that atheists should be told to sit down and shut up. I also would ask you to point out where I've said that... <<

The words and sentiments of you and others would easily fit in with the "sit-down-and-shut-up" philosophy. Some things don't need to be said.

They want to frame the debate in terms that benefit them unfairly (such as declaring atheism a "faith" or a "philosophy" or even a "religion") they want to declare certain legitimate words as being off limits because they find them "charged" or offensive (perfectly legitimate words, yet they would prefer to hobble my vocabulary by insisting on the use of "softer" but imprecise words.)

Taking away my ability to use words that accurately express myself and making false analogies and demanding an "extra" bit of deference simply because a Christian is a Christian does indeed have the net cumulative effect of telling someone to sit-down-and-shut-up.

All these things are cheap and obvious ploys.

>> - I wouldn't stop you even if I could from using the word "Myth" to describe Christianity, because I believe in freedom of speech. <<

Well, that's a plus for you. You're unlike many.

>> I do however, think it's insulting or could be insulting, so most people know to refrain from using it in reference to someone's religion because it just makes people angry. : wow : <<

This sounds like they have a personal problem in coping with anyone who has an opinion that's different than their own. I can't be responsible for their personal problems. Folks who are so easily offended should learn to be tougher, or should avoid contact with people who do not believe EXACTLY as they do (and who are willing to talk frankly about it.)

No matter what word you selected for me to use instead of "myth"... if it were to become commonly used by atheists, doubters and other non-believers... I have very little doubt that many delicate (but loud) Christians would start whining about the new word too.

Obviously in the subconscious minds of many they must feel that by eliminating the words they also eliminate the criticism.

Don't you see... it's not the WORD. The WORD itself could be anything. It's what's behind the word.

>> Anyway, onto what I hope is an intelligent discussion. I say atheism is stupid. (No, I don't actually think that, but for the purposes of this excersize, let's say I do). You say... what? <<

I'd say "okay". I certainly would not become outraged, or overwrought, or personally insulted the way that many Christians do. I wouldn't whine and moan and try to prohibit you from using the word "stupid" (if indeed that was the word that you felt was most accurate in describing your perception of atheism.)

which divide us....these are the lines from one of my daily prayers, Khatoum. Of course you can be a Christian and a Democrat. I think you can be Jewish and a Democrat, Muslim and a Democrat, Buddhist and a Democrat...hey, it sounds like I'm talking about one of my local peace/political action groups!

I will say though, that I have a friend who attends a small town Baptist church in Texas and has been told by others in her church that she was going to hell for being a Democrat.

and I'm talking REALLY small. There may be only one church, and in Texas, it will be Baptist, and it will be conservative.

Don't forget that the general consensus is that Jesus was a liberal. Anyone who says you have to believe certain things is drinking a wacky fundie juice and you don't need any of that.

of a challenge.

Keep in mind that some who give you an especially hard time are probably Freeper moles, although we can't come right out and say that.

That spirituality was gobbled up by organized religion, and nationalism will destroy them both.

Some, not all organized religions I'm talking from a Greek Orthodox perspective but I hear also in the Catholic, organized religions have become more of a money-status sort of thing and isn't the sanctuary of reassurance that it is supposed to be, which turns me off. Nationalism is what I fear will ultimately destroy them both. ('Killing in the name God','God is on our side', has to lead somewhere.)

As far as my religious beliefs, I am not settled. I'm only 17 and no one should expect me to have been by now. I believe there is a God but as John Lennon put it, "Not some old man in the sky."

...here on DU unnerved me until I started seeing the same user names crop up again and again in these "discussions". Religion can make both its adherents and opponents equally obsessed. When I see the hard-core religionist and the hard-core skeptic locked in an exchange of insults shouted past each other, I realize I'm seeing two sides of the same coin.

My new sig line, inspired by DU :) Ever read the book "Perfect Enemies"?

misconceptions.

I know that a lot of people have had horrible experiences with abusers who used relgion as a mask. I know that a lot of people are just born empiricists who cannot believe in anything unless it is proven scientifically. (On the other hand, I know people who were raised as atheists and were temperamentally drawn to religion, much to the dismay of their parents.)

But when people start getting snarky (on DU, where most of the religious people, other than a few freeper infiltrators are in sympathy with their political views) they're going after the wrong target. Most religious DUers are NOT the people who hurt them, NOT believers in images of Mary on toast, NOT anti-evolution, NOT against Halloween, and NOT against gay rights or any of that other good stuff.

It's as if a certain coterie of religious people were to pop up every time someone mentioned religion and repeat the fundie allegations against atheists: "no morality," "agents of the devil," "going to hell," etc. I haven't seen that, except from freepers, because most DUers, even the religious ones, don't believe that.

But I am seeing the opposite, almost every time some one brings up a religious topic: "believing in a mythical sky god," "fairy tales," "drinking the kool-aid." The same people show up on those topics to make rude and often irrelevant comments with the same regularity that the trio of (I suspect) DLC interns who show up on the threads about reinvigorating the Democratic Party.

Note, by the way, that the Religion and Theology Forum is seeing threads promoting atheism, but the Atheism and Agnosticism Group has not been in any sense "invaded" by religious people.

I think that's because most of us actually respect your right to be atheists or agnostics and don't want to give you any grief about it. This is DU, not a small town in Texas.

Yes, I'm secure in my beliefs, and it may surprise you to learn that I know about and recognize the mythological aspects of Christianity. For me, religion is experiential, like love, not logical, like physics (although some of modern physics is pretty counter-intuitive!). Ultimately, we don't know the secrets of the universe, and our paths to spiritual knowledge are partly or mostly culturally determined.

I've found a good fit for myself as a liberal Christian. Your mileage may vary, and that's cool.

I suppose bothering you might be a good thing ....

My views are based on conceptions, valid or not, of over 30 centuries of theologically based societies succumbing to butchery and massacre in the name of holiness ....

I can understand when 'savages' act as animals: but I expect those who claim an inspired morality to NOT act savagely ....

It is HUMANITY that ties us: Religion that divides us ....

If that view bothers you: so be it and amen sister .... I cannot help that .... But I dont suppose it is as bothersome as a sword thrust through the gut, or being burned alive en masse in a synagogue, or one of the myriad methods of destruction engaged by the holy purveyors of faith ...

:shrug:

or because they were just in the way between two warring chiefdoms. It's not like religion is the only cause, ever, of conflict.

you are talking about human nature, that behavior you discribe is not exclusive to religious people. The atheists did a pretty good job on humanity in Cambodia as well as many other places.

Pol Pot may or may not have been 'atheist' ... Being born and bred in the heart of Khmer, he certainly was raised with the knowledge of the Buddhist traditions associated with the earlier Khmer civilization ... Ankor Wat, one of the most famous ancient eastern cities, was known as the 'City of the Temple' ... One of the WORST criminals during the 'Kampuchea' years was a man known as 'Ta Mok', a former Buddhist Monk who led vicious pogroms against KR associates as well as civilians ...

I would note that Stalin and Mao cannot be defined as 'Atheist', even if their parties declaimed religion ... The chinese possessed theology which respected a plethora of deities and household gods ... There is no evidence that Mao specifically rejected the ancient beliefs ... Stalin was also raised in the lap of Russian Orthodoxy ... His credentials as an 'atheist' are also suspect ...

Furthermore: ALL of these 'atheists' directed their furies towards fellow party members ... obviously forced atheism was NOT the cause of these vicious actions ....

There is no evidence that Atheism has EVER been the cause of massacres against believers .... ever ... There no 'atheist theology' that demands adherence to an atheist creed ... How does one force another man to NOT believe in something ? ...

One more point: My problem is that FAITH purports a divine moral impulse .. a live connection with the primal moral force within the universe ... Atheism declares no such 'divine' source ... HUMANITY is our collective .... Atheism ACCEPTS its NON-DIVINE human nature .... It is FAITH that insists itself superior to 'humanity' by it's association with the font of moral purpose: its deity ...

I ACCEPT that 'man' is an animal ...

I do NOT accept that 'faith' in a deity forms a 'human divinity' that is superior to NON believers ....

I would expect that religious folks would NOT act as animals ... yet they do ... why ?....

WE say: because you are HUMAN ... Its your 'divinity' that is suspect ... not your humanity ....

that the worst massacres of human beings in the history of the world weren't perpetrated by committed atheists like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceaucescu, Hoxha, etc. If I may be permitted to mention French scholarship on a Democratic forum, there's a book entitled THE BLACK BOOK OF COMMUNISM which lays at the door of our militantly atheistic materialist friends 100 million unnecessary deaths in just the 20th century alone...

A death-rate that religion, for all its horrors, never even remotely approached...

We could always ask that this forum become a protected forum for people who are spiritual in some way. I suspect that if we did, you would see very few posts that focused on non believers.

The atheism/agnosticism area is a group, not a forum. "Religion & Theology" is a non-political forum. And technically, anything dealing with theology is open to those who doubt it as well.

aren't you being a bit picky. I am absolutely positive you knew exactly what I meant.

Again, we could ask that this "group" be closed so that we who believe have a safe place to discuss religion just like the non believers do. If that were to happen, I am sure there would be very little focus on complaining about other peoples beliefs ruining DU or the world in general.

I wasn't sure if you knew the difference between DU Groups (description here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=206x11) and DU Non-Political Forums. I didn't propose either discussion area, so don't whine about it to me.

participation to ONLY atheists or other non-believers. Believers are welcome. It's not a circlej***.

"SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!" to those who might disagree. Nice.

like-minded people can discuss topics of mutual concern without people jumping into the discussion with irrelevant taunts.

By the way, I have looked in on the Atheists' Group, and I have not only seen no evidence of religious disrupters but no deleted posts to mark past attempts at disruption by religious people.

and if someone criticizes, it's "hate speech". I get it. :eyes: If someone calls a myth a myth, then it's "belittling". Control and limit the use of language and therefore control the debate, eh? What better way to "win" the debate than to effectively prevent it in the first place?

I guess those mean old atheists have had more opportunities to develop a tougher hide and don't feel as threatened or intimidated or insulted by some of the more delicate and sensitive folks around here.

Oh well.

... the thought of entering the Atheists group is just too frightening to contemplate.

as if their religious beliefs are the 'right' or 'only' beliefs and everyone else is going to Hell. I'm speaking as a Jewish person, so I'm sensitive to this sort of thing, as you might understand. I don't think my religion is the one and true religion (after all, no one's come back from the dead to tell, so far as we know); my philosophy is like that of "Any Road" by George Harrison:

...Bow to God and call him Sir
But if you don't know where you're going
Any road will take you there...

What drives me up the wall are self-important atheists who are on a personal mission to destroy all religion as they see it. They're just as bad as the Talibornagains who are on their personal mission to destroy all other faiths.

Sounds excactly like what the homophobes say - "I don't care what you do behind closed doors, as long as you don't shove it down my throat".

By shoving it down your throat, you mean not hiding it right? Homophobes say that someone talking about their boyfriend is "shoving it down my throat" while the anti-Christian bigots say that discussing your religion is "showing it down my throat". :eyes:

Couldn't have said it better myself!

"Shoving it down my throat" when used by homophobes generally means that homosexuals want to have equal rights.

"Shoving it down my throat" when used by the non-religious generally means Christians using their power & their numbers to co-opt the use of government funds and property to promote their religion.

Yeah, those are EXACTLY alike. :eyes:

Some of these same people said on a thread that stealing the baby Jesus from a manger display is the same as a swatstika on a synagogue. They're both hate crimes. That's how DELUDED many Christians are. And I AM a Christian!

I think they are a lot more alike than people here want to admit. It's obvious why - no one likes to admit their own bigotry.

OK, you caught me. I secretly hate ALL religious people, ESPECIALLY Christians. :eyes:

Yes, whenever I have heard someone using that phrase in reference to religion, it means they are sick of seeing the religion with all the power & influence in this country continuing to use public resources to support and promote it.

You can call people bigots, but don't be surprised when they turn around and call you a liar.

"Shoving it down my throat" when uttered by homophobes generally means they are angry at public expressions of homosexuality - often just mentioning that you are gay is enough to get a "don't shove it down my throat" response.

The anti-Christian bigots are quite similar.

No amount of protest on my part is going to change that. A gay couple kissing in public versus a religion using public resources to promote itself - I dunno, those seem different to me. Oh well.

There is certainly a difference between a gay couple kissing in public, and using public resources to promote religion. Obviously.

But speaking in public about your religion is often called "shoving it down my throat" by anti-Christian bigots. That, of course, is very similar.

and being hostile to cover up the fact that they feel lost. Why on Earth would someone feel the need to claim superiority if they were happy with where they are?
In their own way they are no different than the worst bible thumping fundamentalist. They are all just people who are convinced they are right and need to feel superior to someone else.

What all of them fail to realize is that many will change over the years. Some people will leave their church and some people who are telling you believe in myths, will be thinking about and reconsidering those same "myths" twenty years from now.

Gosh for someone who gets upset when their religion gets referred to as "mythology," that smacks a bit of hypocrisy!

and there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

It's funny how both these "reborn atheists" we see at DU and the "Born-Again Christians" at Free Republic and the GOP are really speaking the same message of intolerance and hatred, just a different set of beliefs.

I was wondering how long it might take to hear something like this. It's my experience that when the believers get overwrought and emotional, they resort to name-calling. Sometimes directly, sometimes as a group, they'll call the atheist "reborn" or "born-again" or "supremacist" or "freeper-like", eh?

All I'd like is repect for my beliefs, which I'm not getting from certain people. That's all I want, and frankly I'm getting fustrated at people who mock my beloefs aggresively as Freeper Xtians mock atheists. There's not much difference, face it. :mad:
And "reborn atheist" is the term I've heard several DUers describe themselves with.

... is that your "all-clear" to start using THAT word too? :eyes: If that's your excuse, then it's a poor one. Whatever... I'm not offended by it. It's how your frustration manifests itself. I can live with it.

Feel free to call me whatever you please, Catbert. I just think it's notable when some folks who INSIST that others restrict their vocabulary (because the words are "charged") will themselves use "charged" words when referencing those who challenge their beliefs or their actions.

>> All I'd like is repect for my beliefs, which I'm not getting from certain people. <<

I can respect your right to HAVE whatever beliefs someone may have... but it's seems a bit pretentious for anyone demand that I actually respect the beliefs. I don't. I think they are absurd.

How shall I show respect for these beliefs? By not criticizing them anymore? Shall I just SIT DOWN and SHUT UP? Shall I stop pointing out the cruelty, and absurdity, and inconsistencies, and contradictions in the scriptures? Is that off limits? Shall they declare legitimate words to be off-limits and insist that only softer-gentler words be used instead (even though they are imperfect and inaccurate)? Exactly how much deference do they feel entitled to?

Under no stetch of the imagination would I demand what you call "respect" for my beliefs. I would just hope you respect my right to have those beliefs.
Move to our other flame war, about 50 responses up, please.

see you there.

"Atheism is denying the God you were taught."

Many times atheism is about being abused hurt by the things that were supposed to be safe, and coming to reject them. Anger, Bitterness, Resentment and feelings or betrayal over things that were once believed but came to a hard end for one reason or another almost always lies behind the harshest and most irrational religion bashing.

I know, because I was there. That is why so many agnostics you talk too say something like "I used to be an atheists when I was so angry and bitter at the church, but I moved past that." Many people make the transition from atheism to agnosticism when they get over the resentment and hurt they feel at the ways their own experiences with religion have hurt them.

Much of the hostility against religion is all wrapped up in the trappings of legitimacy, but really come mostly down to personal issues of hurt and betrayal and bitterness. When people finally learn to deal with that resentment, and overcome the bitterness and let the wounds heal.... they'll likely become agnostics. :)

"Denying" god is kind of like a classic cry for help. "Oh yeah God, well I don't believe in you! How about that?!? I'll show you!"

But it sure makes for more convincing conversion stories - "I used to be an atheist!"

Many atheists ARE angry and bitter at the church they grew up in. For wasting their time, for teaching them intolerance, for various reasons. But they rejected belief in god for entirely different reasons. "Atheism" based on hatred of a church or authority figure will rarely last, because they didn't analyze the reasons why god belief is unfounded, only the bad things that happened to them growing up.

People like that who claim they used to be atheists tend to fuel atheist stereotypes - that we're just angry, sinful, mean people who consciously reject god to rebel against him. One of the results of this religion-inspired hatred is when a former president can say that we don't deserve to be citizens, and 95% of the country doesn't give a crap.

on mythology vs religion: My Old Testament professor (at a United Methodist College) opened class on the first day of Intro to Old Testament (required course) by stating that we were going to study mythology for a few weeks. He declared that Genesis is the mythology of the Ancient Hebrews, then went on to define it as a means of seeking to explain how and why things happen, in a time before the science existed to explain it. Bear in mind he was a VERY devout and sincere man, and an ordained United Methodist Minister.

on superstition: My ex husband ( who also studied under this professor) has a degree from the Harvard Divinity School. He used to tell people who asked him why he attended church services so rarely that he was "religious but not superstitious" meaning that one's faith is always with him/her, and attendance in a building or constant espousing of one's faith is not a requirement of being faithful.

on "airs of superiority" oh yeah it is there all right..it is rampant in the very fundamentalist Protestant groups/denominations..the entire focus of their faith seems to be getting their feet in the door at Heaven, and in being the only ones there apparantly since they think no one else is making it. Believe me, I have known people who were so sacrosanct that they pretty much believed Heaven was only going to be their particular congregation, and their blood relatives of course.
Arrogance, oh boy ! Did not stop me from appreciating the inclusive and embracing philosopy of Methodism, and ignoring their down the nose looks. It also did not stop me from having deep discussions with my mom about how wacko this all was (oh boy could she rant on that topic too!!!).

Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jan and Paul whatever, Bennie HInn, etc all have this arrogant, smarmy attitude of being the only ones who are right...I shudder...I think these Pharisees and hypocrites are in for some surprises.

on the right wing in general: no doubt about it, they have Pinky and the Brain syndrome, wanting to take over the world, and they knew that one of the easiest ways to do it was to infiltrate the narrow religionists. But the narrow religionists do NOT own Christianity, never forget that!!!!! The Republican Right does not have an exclusive franchise.

running out of profound things to say

I'm a Christian, and I don't really care what those few have to say. they're just as intolerant as Falwell.

Anytime I post on here, I get flamed for expressing my Christian beliefs in some way or another. I can;t avoid insulting people somehow... :tinfoilhat:

I feel those that wish to kick around religious ideas should be able to under 'Religion and Theology.' Atheists who want to be respectful are welcome. But atheists who want to apply hurtful labels should go to their own forum (I believe that they have their own group).

This is my favorite forum. I have no problem kicking around ideas. I have never felt the need to be insulting - and none have taken my remarks badly.

I want a wide variety of practicing faiths here (or lack thereof). But if you can't be respectful, and feel the need to say things like, 'You have to earn my respect,' then you are discourteous, and, please, stay away from this forum. Just my opinion. One is courteous to others without knowing them well. We are all courteous to people we have just met in-person. We can be courteous (minimally respectful) here.

With respect to this forum, I,personally, wish to speak regularly with Christian-Democrats, Unitarian-Universalist-Democrats, United-Church-of-Christ-Democrats, Religious-Scientist-Democrats, and whomever.

So, please stay, Catbert836. I want this to be a tolerant and respectful and inclusive forum here.

...there are a few who will always attack Christians on this site: Don't take it too personally, it's the right-wing, evangelical Christianity they don't like, but I guess that's what happens when you label 2,000,000,000 people with a single word.

As a neo-pagan, I tend to get labeled as a tree-hugging, muesli-eating hippie (actually, I hate muesli). I'm labeled with the other 9,999,999 neo-pagans, but I don't let it get to me.

As to your original question, It would be nicer if people referred to Christian "Beliefs", rather than "mythology", "legends", "fairy-tales" or "mumbo-jumbo". Not because the teachings of the bible do or don't fit the definitions in the dictionary, just out of respect - and the same goes for the teachings of the Q'ran, the Vedas, the Torah, the Eddas...

If anyone wants to call my beliefs "Mythology", that's fine. I'll be laughing my head off when you're reincarnated in Wisconsin.

(Apologies to Wisconsin DUers)

I think we all have different paths to God.

By taking the attitude that "we all have different paths to God," an atheist could justifiably be offended too. Seriously, consider this. If we call your beliefs "mythology", and you are offended, then how come you can coyly imply that God really is there, and we just haven't found it yet?

I believe in a God who is eternally forgiving, so I think He'll forgive people who don't believe in Him. That being said, I wasn't trying to insult you.

bigoted...

IMO it is the opposite...it makes them look as mean spirited, small and closed minded and bigoted as the religious fundies...maybe someday they will grow up and mature enough to realize that..

:-)

And possibly a few other things. The tenor of the discussion forum has become more hostile toward religion and faith. I admit, I am guilty. Losing the last election and the barrage of religious activism in the past few weeks justified by a "so called" mandate from the right, makes me ill.

Stickers on science books negating evolution, school boards pushing for creationism, nativity scenes on public property, merry Christmas vs happy holidays, the ten commandments in the court house, FCC morality issues, Gay marriage, abortion etc etc etc.......

As an atheist, I feel that I am under attack from my own country.

I agree, we must all find a way to discuss topics concerning religion without attacking the individual. A logical fallacy called Ad Hominem, which is more befitting a republican. The current situation breeds considerable frustration, and it is sometimes difficult to maintain an even temper.

However, there is a difference between attacking a person directly and stating that religious belief is mythology or superstition. You have the right to believe whatever you wish, but that does not change my right to hold an opinion of religion. As an atheist, I see religion as mythology. This is not meant to denigrate you or any other religious person on this board, this is my opinion. We are all democrats, belief or no belief, and tolerance is about understanding that fact.

and I'm a Christian. I'm just so ashamed of the fundie right, the way they've hijacked my religion. I hate the way the word 'Christian' makes people cringe.

I respect your atheism, and thanks for your tolerance of us religious people. Like you said, we're all democrats, we're in this together.

Here's a big :grouphug:

Hail, brother/comrade!

Let us together smash in the Lord's name the evil global system of capitalistic savagery and oppression!:toast:

and would be useful if it were more meaningful in scope.

The myth and methods of religion are only tools to use in the process of cultivating a deeper understanding of self and place.

Atheists and Believers are both on the same track, if not the same path. Where the track leads cannot be rationally determined, but can be reasonably discussed.

Many methods are used to develop a deeper understanding of the sacred and the spiritual. Who would disrespect an honest effort to relink to the source (which is the root definition of religion)?

Yet who, also, would not stand up to expose the charlatans and exploiters of something as dear to some as religion?

If the discourse is above-board and mature, it has a chance. When the discussion devolves, into disrepectful opinion, it descends into meaningless chaos and noise.

Part of the trouble between atheists and liberal Christians is we (ok some of us do) don't know you exist. Because the fundamentalist Christians are so vocal they steal the name. Let the world know that they do not speak for you or other Christians.

As long as you remain in their shadow they will continue with their hatred and use you as numbers to further their cause. They spew numbers like 90% of the US believes in god and this makes it a us vs them issue. Atheists see those numbers and can do little but assume those 90% all hate them as much as the bile spewing Robertsons of the world.

The easist way to get the apostates to see that they are wrong in their assumptions is to show them they are wrong. I use the same tactics on Christians. They have set expectations of atheists. I do not give them their performing hate filled skeptic. I show them that I am a compassionate open minded individual that is willing to listen to what they have to say and show them some respect. You need to do the same thing. Shatter the nonbelievers expectations of Christians and they will have to consider you for who you are and not some silly label.

any atheists would know we liberal Christians exist if they bothered to read posts here before they posted themselves.

I appreciate the sentiments in the last paragraph of your post. As someone who was an atheist for 15 or so years before having a slight paradigm shift a few months ago, the amount of intolerance that occurs from both sides blows my mind.

Don't remain silent when some Christians assume homosexuality is an insult, and I'll speak up when some people denounce Christians.

It has become a flame war; vicious and destructive.

Its all part of the turn the other cheek thing isn't it?

Can I be a Democrat too? Of course.

Don't confuse non-Christians as being anti-Christian (some are both). Many of us also had frustration with Christianity, Christians, or both.

Some people think bigotry against the majority is okay. Bigotry is just as bad, whether it's against the majority or a minority. Don't let them get you down. Just talk to cool people.

what you call "bigotry" against the majority is not as bad as bigotry against the minority, because the minority doesn't have the power to institutionalize its beliefs.

It's why claims of reverse-racism strike me as silly.

What you're talking about is the effect on society. I agree that bigotry against minorities has a worse effect on society than bigotry against the majority. However, it's just as immoral either way.

until you are confronted with this, you can't understand. If you have been confronted with this, and are okay with it, how can you not be outraged?