To the religious folk on DU, an appreciation from an agnostic.

Personally, I'm uncommitted on the existence of deity. But people of deep faith have been my friends and mentors most of my life. I see the religious folk here get bashed time and again by people who are angry at religion ascribing to you thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors I've never seen you exhibit.

Just as many of you have spoken out passionately about LGBTQ rights, even if they didn't impact your life directly, it's time for me to speak out on your behalf.

The courage, conviction, and dedication to justice and love that I routinely see in people of faith leaves me in awe. You inspire me, even if I choose to believe it is your breath, rather than God's that I'm breathing in.

In civil rights, no-nukes, anti-poverty and anti-war movements it has frequently been religious people who have been the boldest and most articulate.

And I'm not even talking about the Kings and the Berrigans and the Chavezs...I'm talking about the ordinary folk who believe they are called to love and justice and peace.

I may not agree with your faith, but I respect it, and I thank you for what you have taught me, and given to the world.

How solipsistic.

all of this good work because they feel that "god" requires it of them, or simply because it's the right thing to do?

And what about the equal number of people who are just as religious as your friends and who speak out against gay rights, advocate war and don't give a rip about poverty or social justice? Your own experience is fine, but hardly representative.

It happens.

...or at least how I understand how it's supposed to be.

There are those that do works thinking that's their ticket into heaven, no question.
There are also those who do works out of obligation.

For Christians, IMO, works are the outward manifestation of Christ working within us. It's a 'product', so to speak, of sanctification. It's not an obligation, it's not to check off the spiritual scorecard, it's because it's the right thing to do. It's because of who we are. It's supposed to be as natural as breathing.

Based on what, exactly? The words of theologians who have never managed to reach a consensus on the topic, despite centuries of arguing about it?

And are you giving credit to "Christ working within us" for ALL works, or only the warm and fuzzy ones? Who gets the blame for the evil done by people who claim fervently that that are acting in god's name?

I'm not sure what this fascination is over theologians having to come to a consensus in order to make skeptics happy. Quite honestly, its a false argument.

There's always been those who see the world as "us and them" regarding what the 'proper' interpretation would be. Even the apostles. Check out Luke 9, where they come up to Jesus and say "Hey, there's this guy doing stuff and he's not part of the 'in' crowd. Should we stop him?"

Jesus says no.

Paul talks about churches divided over leadership in 1 Corinthians, and promptly rebukes them for such petty arguments.

In John 17, Jesus prays for unity, not uniformity, among his followers.

In Acts, the first council of Jerusalem, dealt with how the church, which was essentially Jewish, was to welcome Gentiles into their midst. The proclamation from the apostles said, paraphrasing, "It seems like a good idea to us...." when discussing what parts of the Law the church would expect Gentiles to follow. Not "It shall be", but "seems like a good idea".

How did I come to this? Well, reading scripture, for starters. James is a good place to start, then Ephesians, 1 Corinthians (you know, that "grace" stuff). It also helps if one understands who the authors were talking to, and in what context. The Epistles are like reading one half of a conversation.

Oh, and don't forget the "red words"....those are important, too.

As to who gets the blame for evil done who claim they are acting in God's name.... the people who do the acts do. Period. Hate, intolerance, bigotry, violence, murder, exploitation... none of those are things Jesus asks of his followers. None.

"Hate, intolerance, bigotry, violence, murder, exploitation... none of those are things Jesus asks of his followers."

But his dad did. And the father and son are one. Oh yeah, that's right, you get to ignore the parts of the bible you don't like. Sorry, I forgot.

Its about time you came back and started defining shit properly for your followers. Because you know, the last time you tried you really fucked up. One would think you could have left a PDF file or something instead of some pulp fiction book. Ya know, so that your followers don't have to keep hedging their bets and changing their story when discussing you.

Really. Thanks.

:eyes:

:toast:

We reap what we sow, no matter what we believe or don't believe, in this lifetime or another, (IMHO) Want Paradise? Sow Paradise for your fellow mankind, sow war, and you reap hell on earth, as ever, the choice is ours! We get as we give I would like to see bu$h get his! "christian" my foot!!!! Darlene :dem:

That should get you a medal.

I'm humbled by his humble nature."

Alanis knew what she was talking about. Ponder that, will you?

Also, while you may respect the faith of others, I'd be interested to know why you think that anyone else should? Why should faith be automatically more respected than political, sports team, or other ideological affiliations?

Both Martin Luther King and Ted Bundy were Christians.

Both Josef Stalin and Dawkins were/are Atheists

meh and double meh

Feel free to borrow this anytime.

Suppress ideas by force if you can't answer them.

Just like northern whites in the 1850's who insisted that there was simply no way that southern white slaveholders were cruel.

My opinion happens to be that I don't recommend this post, that isn't suppression, it's expression.

when I talked about "force". Rather the not-so-subtle implication of the flyswatter.

and insightful comment from the purveyor of flyswatters to deal with their tormentors

"Suppress ideas by force if you can't answer them."



Don't forget to make the breathing sounds while you type.

the meaning of the flyswatter, if not "damn, don't we wish we could use something like this on those pesky atheists". Yes, I'm sure you do...get used to disappointment.

The issue is what you wish you could do and what it says about you and your ilk here...not any suppression that you would ever be able to impose in fact.

A flyswatter is used to swat flies, insects characterized by their unceasing search for shit, accompanied by a repetitive constant drone signifying nothing more than their unceasing search for shit.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

the last two thousand years of Theology.

spending so much time and so many words trying to discredit and rid yourself of something you regard as so inconsequential.

As I said, get used to disappointment.

pictures of flyswatters. :eyes:

and suppressed?

:eyes: :eyes:

you'd have a giant hard on about it.

Unless, of course, you're simply spewing bullshit.

Willful ignorance isn't contagious the last time I checked.

and intelligently thought out piece. It is terribly disheartening that is has been apparently been unrecced by many. I too have pointed out the same things re: MLK, the Berrigans, the central role of Churches in the civil rights movement, Archbishop Romero in El Salvador, and on and on... to religion bashers I know . Sometimes they will grudgingly agree. Sometimes they'll act like right wingers. ie. "don't confuse me with facts and evidence, my mind's already made up".Thank you again for this wonderful post.

As have I.If you have not seen the same thing, I envy you. I wish I hadn't seen what the OP was talking about, so often here. Too often to pretend it doesn't exist.The OP never said it was everyone, just often enough to be pointed out and it's an appreciation of the views of those who are regularly mocked if not insulted by SOME people here and among the left in general.

have so much that they cannot believe it can be different for others, that the shit they think it means isn't what it is supposed to mean when the dogma is scraped off. there are more of the same old comments here than there are those who get the OP. Same old, same old. Thank you, OP. I am spiritualist and love God. I know others don't need that but I don't recall ever ridiculing atheist people in mean ways because they don't believe like I do. I don't recall atheists getting punched in the nuts the way religious/spiritual people do here routinely. Sad that people hold on to their childhood hatreds and traumas and inflict their misery and anger on everyone, combining all religious people together.
Atheists hate stereotyping of themselves but they sure love to shovel it onto religious people. Nice.

of us weren't there so don't hold it against us.

That's funny.

Do you even understand how what you posted is a standardized and offensive stereotype?

so agree with you!

prevent GLBT people from having rights, you know. In massive numbers. They receive no treatment in return that even comes close to the laws they promote, the demonstrations against us 'God Hates', and all of that stemming from the oft times venomous nature of 'sermons' that are, much like your OP, based on finger pointing and announcements of the sins of others. To equate the bigots to their victims is just cheap and vulgar.
You are speaking without reservation for a community so diverse that the members run the gamut from monsters to angels. Without the reservations, you seem to promote the monsters.

all of us agree with some. One could jump all over atheists but that doesn't happen here. I dom't care if you believe or not but respect is something both sides need to give to each other.

"One could jump all over atheists but that doesn't happen here."

Selective blindness, huh?

believers here jumping all over atheists. I can think of three posters off the top of my head who engage in it regularly. I can think of several threads on the first page of R/T which do it as well.

Do yourself a favor, and don't feign innocence. You look a little too cat-like...

I'm about to give up on this forum. Your words are important.

Because there hasn't been a sufficient show of fawning deference and praise for the notions espoused in your hit-and-run posts? Which you fling out and then refuse to engage in any substantive discussion on? Don't think you'll be missed.

And why are these words important, while you maintain we should close our ears to the words of hatred espoused by folks far more religious than the OP, and pretend that they have never been spoken?

the rest of us. or is stereotyping easier

the context of my question. I blame those who hate and those like the one I was replying to, who would have us sweep the truth of their hate under the rug, because it reflects so poorly on his cherished faith.

:hi:

the 100th anniversary of a notable one, the battle for women's suffrage. We should always remember the struggle of the Christian churches, most especially the Catholic Church, to prevent giving women the vote.

You may not have heard much about this in Sunday school.

The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911 recommends that Catholics should be anti-suffragist.

Battle well fought, heads high in defeat, onward to the next bulwark!

And yes, you scoffers, I'm aware that the next president elected after suffrage passed was Warren G. Harding, one of the worst, but acknowledged to be a handsome man. I still think women ought to have their own voices.

beaten to help blacks get equality. 1911 was a stupid time. Everyone was anti women's vote and anti civil rights. you didn't include MEN in the zillions everywhere who thought the same way.

that the motivation to good deeds and moral conduct can ultimately come only from god. If that is so, why did it take so many centuries for religious people to finally reach the point of fighting against things like slavery? Human standards of morality are products of their time, but if morality is god-given, then it cannot be so.

:shrug:

You've never seen anyone argue that religious people are the only ones who bother with charity?

You've never seen anyone argue that morality can only come from a higher power/source?

You've never seen anyone claim that ethics and morality originated with religion?

You've never seen anyone claim that non-believers "lack a moral compass"?

If you're really going to stick to that story, then it must mean that you either don't do much reading here, or you have a rather poor memory. These stereotypes are to be found peppered throughout R/T for the last few years, at least. Entire OPs have been dedicated to the subject, and flamewars have been had in completely unrelated threads due to these claims.

The denial based solely on personal experience also conveniently dodged the contention that this happens quite a lot out in the wide world as well, not to mention giving no answer to the substantive argument of my post.

I can report only on what I've seen, and I've seen a lot more gleeful pile-ons from atheists than I have hostility from theists.

Frankly, I think some of the people on this site more obsessed with us than we are with them. I can go to church for YEARS without ever hearing the word "atheist," much less any condemnation, either from the pulpit or from my fellow parishioners.

condemnation of atheists (or non-Christians in general) among any segment of Christianity in this country, let alone among the most numerous and influential segment? Or are you just going by your own limited experience and leaving it at that?

And yes, one does tend to want to pile on with the truth, when faced with some of the despicable apologetics for the abuses and evil of organized religion that are displayed on this board and this site. That's not being obsessed...it's speaking loudly for what's right. Maybe if the "liberal" and "progressive" wings of Christianity on DU and in this country were a bit more vocal in their condemnation of the same, instead of being meekly silent and acquiescent, they wouldn't find themselves lumped together with it so often.

A little more "That is complete bullshit" from the more liberal faithful about some ridiculous or obscene beliefs, and a little less, "Well all of us don't believe that."

who agree with you on most issues.

Whatever.

why aren't those who agree with us on most issues, NOT dumping on those condemning us to hell?
Why do they more often side with them?
Why do they not challenge beliefs that are dangerous or ridiculous simply because those beliefs come from their religion?

Christians are NOT a monolithic group. The fundies do not recognize us as Christians. Their response to being criticized by liberal Christians is to say, "But you've gone over to the devil."

But if it makes you feel better to think that the megachurch types will listen to what a UCC or Episcopal person says or to think that the UCCs or Episcopalians aren't speaking up because they agree with the fundamentalists or to think that no liberal Christians have spoken up (or that the MSM would pay any attention to them if they did), then go right ahead.

You sound exactly like the right-wingers who comment on my local paper's website and claim that no Muslim has ever condemned terrorism.

You, along with the fundies, claim to be following the SAME book, the SAME teachings, and the SAME god. So when one group becomes so vocal, and so powerful, that they, by default, OWN the name "christians", it is up to YOU to take that back. It is up to YOU to speak out against them. It is up to YOU to get the rest of the world to agree that you do not belong with them. It is YOUR fight, not mine, not the MSM, not anyone but YOURS.

If "moderate" and "liberal" christians did this, I guarantee that the rest of the country and the MSM would be on YOUR side. But when politicians continue to legislate based on their own religious viewpoints, which seem to coincidentally agree with those of the "fundies", then what is one supposed to think?

The point is, if you do not like being lumped in with the fundies when they receive their well deserved criticism and ridicule, then it is YOUR responsibility to separate yourself from that group, not mine.

Rick Warren is a good case in point.

and it was Obama who embraced Rick Warren for political reasons.

Having worked on the Kucinich campaign, I learned some harsh truths about the press in this country, and the same harsh truths apply to coverage of religion. The news media are owned by corporate types. What they cover either 1) reinforces the powers that be or 2) is gaudy and colorful.

Kucinich would come to Minneapolis, draw steadily increasing crowds, and get NO coverage in the local press. One of the "approved" candidates would come to Minneapolis and get a full article, even if it was only to speak to 25 top-dollar contributors.

The mainline churches lobby against cuts in programs for the poor, march in Gay Pride parades, and provide food, clothing, and shelter for thousands of people in the Twin Cities year in and year out. (The same was true in Portland. Thanks to the efforts of the local churches, every meal was covered, seven days a week.) We get NO publicity unless some fundamentalist decides to accuse us of being in league with the devil. What we do does not please the powers that be.

The fundamentalists violate the law by telling their members to vote Republican. That serves the interests of the powers that be. They get the publicity.

Once in a while, Jim Wallis gets a few minutes of airtime, but that happens about as often as Noam Chomsky getting airtime.

Do something to make you different from those that bring you down. I support you! Seriously.

we tend to refer to ourselves by our denomination name, which in my case is Episcopalian.

Especially when the fundie nonsense is in my face and in my legislation, every single day. Not until "progressive" christians start making a stink, start MAKING front page news, start SHOWING the world that the fundies ARE wing nuts and that you DO NOT agree with them, not until then, will you ever be able to separate yourself from them and take BACK your religion.
And until that day, you need to live with the fact that your beliefs are too damn similar to the wingnuts making legislation and will be lumped in with them.

funding our efforts.

The press isn't interested in us, because we don't support the right-wing agenda, and because we're not outrageous.

the support of most of the rest of those that think like me. Go for it. I/we have your back. Really. :fistbump:

So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Alec below:

"But let me ask you something: Where are your counter-protest and mocking signs? Why do I never see them captured right next to the problem children? Where were you when I drove by Planned Parenthood the other day and saw protesters with signs of dead babies?"

But it was the new, kindler, gentler, face of christianity. Unfortunately, it was the same shit, different pile.

because his brand of megachurch appeals to suburbanites who have no other way of finding community, and unfortunately, most Americans live in the suburbs. It was a vote-getting maneuver, and a cynical one.

By the way, one rarely sees a fundamentalist megachurch in a city. Back when I was growing up, there used to be a couple of proto-megachurch outfits in downtown Minneapolis, but when I moved back here in the 1980s, they were all gone. I think urbanites have other means of finding community and emotional support and don't need the one-stop shopping aspect of the megachurches. (The biggest churches in Minneapolis are ELCA Lutheran, and the biggest ones in Portland are First Unitarian and Trinity Episcopal Cathedral.)

Lakewood Church - Houston, TX.

Church on the Rock - Saint Louis, MO

And those are two fundamentalist megachurches to be found in major cities off the top of my head. I'm sure if you Google a few more you'll find them in big cities all over the south, including Florida, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee, and Missouri.

and it was a distressing development when Sunbelt residents began moving to Minnesota for "the quality of life" and immediately brought along everything that keeps the South down, such as fundamentalism, a disdain for book l'arnin', and low tax mania.

The megachurches in the North are concentrated in the suburbs, which is where the Sunbelt migrants flocked, so that they wouldn't have to look at our growing East African, Latino, and Southeast Asian populations. The megachurches then recruit newcomers to the suburb aggressively.

The way the megachurches spring up almost instantly is highly suspicious to me. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that one of the right-wing foundations is slipping them funds under the table. As a preacher's kid, I know that most churches spend several years in rented quarters before getting their own building. A megachurch springing up all of a sudden in an outer suburb with an instant multimillion-dollar campus is one of those things that makes me go "Hmm."

A good rule to follow is to stay far away from any church that advertises itself as "non-denominational." It means that it's run by free-form fundamentalists with no one to enforce rules on finances or behavior.

Again and again you post something as fact that is, in reality, your perception based on your experience in your liberal enclave.

And thats a hell of a lot of people, and votes. That is what is so frustrating with the argument that the fundies are just some small fringe group. News flash: small fringe groups don't have TENS OF MILLIONS of voters.

have to be a fundamentalist to make bad voting decisions.

The economic interests for which the megachurches are a smoke screen coincide with the typical inclinations of outer suburban voters: a desire to disassociate from the city and the poor and racially diverse people who live there (so it's OK to cut programs for the vulnerable), an obsession with protecting property values (so you don't want anything, such as transit, that might bring poor people into the community), a fanatical devotion to their cars (so drill, baby, drill), an actual preference for cookie-cutter chain stores (don't want to have or do anything that isn't popular with their neighbors), and a large emphasis on athletics and social status (to be a REAL American, not one of them pointy-headed intellectuals). The megachurches may encourage their people to vote Republican (they also inflate their membership figures, because they never remove people from the rolls, even if they're no longer attending), but unaffiliated suburbanites may vote the same way without any such influence.

Wasn't there a post on DU a few months ago about how some of the megachurches were worried about losing young people?

Take the case of Oregon, the state with the highest percentage of self-identified atheists in the country. Just recently, they passed an anti-gay marriage law, and yet their Republican Party is largely libertarian-leaning. (There actually is a substantial Libertarian Party in the state.) This leads to a bizarre political climate in which voters approve assisted suicide and decriminalization of marijuana but until recently, they acted as if it was OK to cut public schools, state parks, and regulatory agencies to the bare bone, if only they could avoid raising taxes.

So the situation is more complex than your characterization.

but are you telling me its sheer coincidence that the views of the fundies just HAPPEN to be the same as tens of million of "liberal" christian voters? Sure, there are other reasons, but the big factor is the lowest common denominator, christianity. And the fundies control it. Your fight is with them, not nonbelievers. And when you decide to take the fight to them, you may well be very surprised to find yourself supported by a whole lot of non-believers. Why? It's in both our best interests.

"So when one group becomes so vocal, and so powerful, that they, by default, OWN the name "christians", it is up to YOU to take that back. It is up to YOU to speak out against them. It is up to YOU to get the rest of the world to agree that you do not belong with them. It is YOUR fight, not mine, not the MSM, not anyone but YOURS."

Its not front page news, its not sexy, and it doesnt sell advertising, but it goes on all the time. Dont take this personally, but it might not be obvious to those who dont regularly go to church, have bible study, etc. It IS a topic of conversation and it IS a challenge we (progressive Christians) are trying to meet. Some of the fruit is recently visible in the rise of the "creation care" meme. By constantly emphasizing that we (Christians) are responsible for despoiling our home, we are turning the tide. If you know where to look, you'll see it. Hopefully it will be apparent to all, and its positive ramifications felt by all, and none too soon.

I can understand that, I guess. The media loves them some picket signs, so there's plenty of coverage of abortion protesters and the "God Hates Fags" assholes. I'm sure it's hard to compete with that...

But let me ask you something: Where are your counter-protest and mocking signs? Why do I never see them captured right next to the problem children? Where were you when I drove by Planned Parenthood the other day and saw protesters with signs of dead babies?

for something the powers that be aren't interested in or are hostile to ...

Have you ever called in all 6 TV stations in town to cover your event only to have it ignored by 5 of them in favor of lengthy coverage of a scandal about a county sheriff and his deputy's wife, while the 6th station shows your even for all of 10 seconds?

If they won't give you the spotlight, steal it. Meet them on the street corners where they're acting like asses and deal with them there, in front of the cameras. Don't let them appear as though they're anything other than frothing and hateful idiots. And don't them stand in front of public health places unanswered. If you're seen in public enough, you won't need the media.

see my post below to cleanhippie. The problem, ultimately, rests with us, the progressive Christians, and not the media. While they are culpable in aiding the religious right, WE are the ones with the responsibility to admonish our brothers & sisters in Christ. I think the problem is many of us are hesitant to shove our opinions in others faces. We SHOULD be pushing back on some of our largest cultural issues: LGBT rights, reproductive rights, the environment, and I do try to sway people on these issues, but on a one-to-one basis. Its just my comfort zone. I am called as a Christian to GET OUT of my comfort zone and to announce what I believe is right, but, like getting out of a warm bed on a cold day, my mind always convinces me to stay in comfort just a few...more...minutes. :( Im getting better but there is much room for improvement.

And that could include liberals in general...

When you breed dogs, selecting for one trait often pulls others into the mix as well. Domesticated dogs were chosen for their lack of fear of humans and their affability. This selective pressure had the side effect of flopped ears, curly tails, and changing coat color. These traits were completely incidental. So, IMO, liberals tend to be more intelligent, more open to new ideas, and more comfortable with the unknown, more willing to try new things, etc. I think a side-effect of this (similar to the dog domestication) is we are far less likely to be confrontational. We tend to be more 'go-along-to-get-along' and 'live-and-let-live.'

(forgive the dog comparison, Im teaching genetics now and its the first thing that came to mind)

How does that quote go? "The evil are cock-sure but the good are full of doubt?" Thats sums it right up. When rational discourse fails, we cant be afraid to wade in, clubs swinging.

if not for this board. ;)

Especially when the fundie nonsense is in my face and in my legislation, every single day. Not until "progressive" christians start making a stink, start MAKING front page news, start SHOWING the world that the fundies ARE wing nuts and that you DO NOT agree with them, not until then, will you ever be able to separate yourself from them and take BACK your religion.
And until that day, you need to live with the fact that your beliefs are too damn similar to the wingnuts making legislation and will be lumped in with them.

I think its genetic/cultural for many progressives to be rational, polite, and discussion-oriented. We are convinced of the validity of our arguments and we assume that others will come around if we just get better at making our argument. OTOH many conservatives I know have no qualms about hootin and hollerin and making a scene just to get their point across. THAT kind of attitude is 'sexy' to the media and is well-covered. It goes against my nature to be so vocally adamant. I guess its is a skill I must work on strengthening.

Those like MLK Jr & Ghandi are great examples of progressives gaining the limelight in the right way for the right reasons. I dont know how the abolitionists and suffragists got their message across, but Im sure we could learn from them.

for the liberal and progressive Christians in this country to outvoice and outvote the fundamentalists, especially since you and so many others here have claimed that they are just a tiny fringe minority that doesn't even come close to representing the bulk of American Christians?

:shrug:

Should be simple.

and people have the free will to be deliberately ignorant.

That's exactly what they say about you.

The people you claim are a tiny fringe minority of Christians are getting exactly what they want and what they're voting for...public officials who fight tooth and nail against gay rights, who promote public prayer and the teaching of creationism in schools, who oppose abortion in any form, to the point of endangering the life and health of women...need I go on? You know the litany as well as I do. They are not being screwed over.

So I ask again, why are liberal and progressive Christians, the vast majority of Christians in this country according to you and many others, not making the same impact?

play to their prejudices. The righties play upon the economic insecurities of low-information voters and tell them everything will be all right if they just get back to "Christian values." So they promote all this Puritan nonsense while picking their constituents' pockets. The constituents don't know history, economics, or even traditional Christian theology, so they are sitting ducks for this kind of approach.

I doubt that most of the Republicanite politicians actually believe the allegedly Christian positions that they are spouting. Their behavior says that they don't. The current crop of Republicanite leaders comes off as sociopathic, willing to do and say anything to retain and increase their power.

I grew up in Minnesota and Wisconsin in the 1950s and 1960s, in an outer suburb full of old-style Republicans, and neither school prayer nor evolution were issues. We never had school prayer (the closest we came to religious observance was singing Christmas carols and the occasional Bach motet in choir). We did have released time for religious instruction, although I always wondered why it was necessary, because my church managed to conduct its confirmation classes outside of school hours. Evolution was 99% non-controversial. I had ONE fellow student, a Jehovah's Witness, who was obsessed with creationism, but we all thought he was a bit loony on the subject.

I went away to grad school on the East Coast in 1972, and when I came back in 1981, there were suddenly megachurches all over the suburbs and people with pro-school prayer bumper stickers driving around. The whole region had undergone a cultural change, at least in the burbs.

I've read writers who describe this change as the final victory of the South. The whole Bible-thumpin', gun-totin', ignorant-and-proud-of-it attitude seems really alien to what I grew up with.

to the false beliefs of Christianity that have screwed this country up so badly, and who knows better but doesn't speak out, is part of the problem, not an ally, at least not on this issue.

And if the most you can take credit for is NOT condemning others to hell, you really do need work on your PR.

in God makes you the same as Jerry Falwell. Just because they say it doesn't make it true. And I don't remember vast quantities of unbelieving people standing up for good themselves either.

You can easily find the full text on the web. The article on "Women" is very long and reads as if it were drafted by a committee, which here and there incorporates snippets of all sorts of views: it seems to me to incorporate an unfinished power struggle between liberals and conservatives in the church, and by selective quoting one can probably support all manner of views. Here's an excerpt:

The Catholic Church has made no doctrinal pronouncement on the question of women's rights in the present meaning of that term. It has from the beginning vindicated the dignity of womanhood and declared that in spiritual matters man and woman are equal, accordingto the words of St. Paul: "There is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). The Church has also jealously guarded the sanctity of home life, now so disastrously infringed by the divorce evil, and while upholding the husband's headship of the family has also vindicated the position of the mother and wife in the household. Where family rights and duties and womanly dignity are not violated in other fields of action, the Church opposes no barrier to woman's progress. As a rule, however, the opinions of the majority of Catholics seem to hold the political activity of women in disfavour. In England some distinguished prelates, among them Cardinal Vaughan, favoured women's suffrage. His Eminence declared: "I believe that the extension of the parliamentary franchise to women upon the same conditions as it is held by men would be a just and beneficial measure, tending to raise rather than to lower the course of national legislation." Cardinal Moran in Australia held similar views: "What does voting mean to a woman? As a mother, she has a special interest in the legislation of her country, for upon it depends the welfare of her children . . . . The woman who thinks she is making herself unwomanly by voting is a silly creature" (Quotations from "The Tablet", London, 16 May, 1912). The bishops of Ireland seem rather to favour women's abstention from politics, and this is also the attitude of most American bishops, at least as far as public pronouncements are concerned. Several American prelates have, however, expressed themselves in favour of woman suffrage at least in municipal affairs. In Great Britain a Catholic Women's Suffrage Society was organized in 1912



So the Church is officially represented as taking no position on suffrage; the conservatives claim to represent the majority view; but other attitudes towards suffrage are not suppressed

You don't think the Catholic Church has revised its encyclopedia entry to jive with that ever-changing zeitgeist since they originally chimed in against women?

Do you deny that religion has historically always had to be dragged kicking and screaming before it reluctantly becomes a force for any sort of social change?

http://books.google.com/books?id=JSIUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA692&dq=catholic+encyclopedia+suffragettes+1913&hl=en&ei=-PLGTfjXDMLdgQfXg7nMBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

But the text looks to me pretty much like what's here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm

"Religion" is too vague a term to support sweeping statements

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

I am assuming this is the question you are referring to:

Why should faith be automatically more respected than political, sports team, or other ideological affiliations?

In general I give more respect to a person's religious choices than I do their political, sports, or other affiliations. If they are genuine in their search for truth & understanding, if they are genuine in the pursuit of righteousness, it is not a flippant thing to be mocked and disrespected. Political beliefs are similar in my book, though not on the same level. Sports isnt in the same category. It is a facet of life, it is a hobby, it is not a worldview and it is not something that most people try to incorporate into their innermost being.

One caveat: I hope I never treat people 'automatically' unless it is with the better aspects of human nature: compassion, willingness to listen, charity, etc.

Its trite but good advice: treat others as you would be treated. Jesus strongest condemnations were against hypocrisy. How can I demand respect while never affording it to others? "Because their ideas are stupid and mine aren't!" is not a legitimate reason to continually look down upon all who disagree with you.

but I have a few problems with it.

First, you have stated that you do put religion in a different category, but your only reason why is that you don't think a "worldview" should be "disrespected." I believe that is a statement made from a falsely dichotomous view. "Disrespect" is not the same as criticism. There is a world of grey between respecting someone's idea, and disrespecting it. Do you see?

As for treating others as you would be treated, the issue is not so much with treatment as it is with perception. When religion is afforded a special, higher category, criticm of it can be perceived as overly harsh and disrespectful when, in truth, it is calmer, more rational, and even more justified than, say, a screed against smoking.

Finally, there is the issue of tone. By dismissing the arguments of detractors by stating simply that they are disrespectful, or born out of anger or other issues, the dismisser is making a tone argument, which is a special kind of ad hom designed to shut down debate.

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

Our President is a person of faith. We would probably stand on the front lines with all here, no matter their beliefs, against the likes of WI Gov. Walker.
But we simply think the basis for that belief is bullshit, pure and simple, and we come to this forum with that in mind and will not sit back and say, "it's okay to believe in that bullshit."
It's what we would say to Randian Libertarians, Republican Free Market Fanatics, Iraq War apologists or Creationist.
In intellectual discourse, faith and belief do not get a pass.

In intellectual discourse, do those without faith and belief get a pass?

I don't see any atheists shouting "respect my beliefs!"

I don't ever recall atheists asking for anyone to respect their lack of belief, that wasn't the question.

The question you posted about what organization , sports team as an example, is any more or less worthy of respect or criticism got me thinking.

Edhopper's post I think expands on this question.

so what makes you think those with faith and belief are asking for a "pass"?

It be better if to join you on the other OP and see where this may go.

I am interested in edhopper's response.

So I will come back to this one later.

Not in intellectual discourse nor in any other way. But but what logic do you conclude that because atheists believe in no god, they believe in nothing?

The question was strictly to the point of if god exists. That's all.

we welcome critical thinking and reasoning on any subject. The reason many of us are atheist is because the belief in a deity just doesn't make sense. We constantly ask for evidence or debate to support the idea.

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

I'll try this point by point.

Is the answer 42?

You can disagree with it, and I welcome cogent responses, especially those responses that disagree with me as they more often give me the opportunity to learn what I might not know.

42, I hope not. Don't panic.

My thanks to the moderators if they are listening.

Presumption, much?

.. and avoiding specifically discussing those rules, feedback or lack of feedback. Yikes.

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

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

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

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

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

Before David, son of Jessie killed the giant Goliath, before he became king of Israel before he met Bathsheba, he fell in love with king Saul's son, Prince Jonathan, they made a covenant because of love, see it in the book of 1 Samuel up to the first chapter of 2 Samuel, or read this website....

http://angel2shine.lbbhost.com/daj.html

David never got in trouble because of this affair, but Bathsheba! Seems to me, that if love is involved, it's Gods seal of approval on the union. Darlene

that I am not angry at religion. I graduated high school from a Catholic Seminary and look back very fondly at my time there. Am still friends with the 3 classmates I had that are priests (and other non-priest religious classmates).

But go ahead and let us know that your broad brush is OK.