I used the "Parental Control" on my Cable Box today

I used the Parental Control on my Cable Box today. I was surfing the channels, and came across this really obnoxious preacher, and I had a spiritual awakening.

Upon hearing the voice of God, I obediently locked out every religious channel that I am unfortunate enough to get. There was a total of 4.

It occoured to me that the religious are typically wrong on every issue .... right across the board beginning with Global Warming, and right down to the war in Iraq, or even Theologic discussion (note the suffix logic). They substitute emotional superstition for fact.

I feel much better now. My home and children are temporarily safe from invasion by those who hear voices and talk to imaginary friends.

As conservative groups are now recruiting preachers to carry their political message from the pulpits; offering legal representation if the IRS takes them to court, maybe this could blossom into a national campaign.

The only organized christian denomination FOR the war in Iraq were the Baptists.

Everyone else was against it. Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.

George Bush was elected twice by the fundamentalists. Almost every car with a little fish aslo has a yellow ribbon and a W sticker.

sheesh....... distort the truth much?

Many Christian churches condemned the war and many liberals are, gasp, Christians as well.

That said, this probably belongs in the religion section.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

I remember absolutely NO christians opposing the war in the beginnig.

I only remember christians waiving the flag and supporting the war. I participated in many anti-war rallys, and the religious were always the counter protestors.

There might be a few here and there today, but that is simply because a majority of people now oppose the war.

the menonites for one and the episcopals for two were against the war from the start.

But I understand how it might be disconcerting for Twily, to be faced with this information. Life is so much simpler if all Christians are Bastards.

Bryant

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Examples of Straw Man

"But I understand how it might be disconcerting for Twily, to be faced with this information. Life is so much simpler if all Christians are Bastards. Bryant"

DESCRIPTION OF A RED HERRING:

Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

Example of a Red Herring:

"But I understand how it might be disconcerting for Twily, to be faced with this information. Life is so much simpler if all Christians are Bastards. Bryant"

There were NO organized christian religious organizations who opposed the war from the start.

Besides, the war is only one thing they are wrong about.

How about evolution?
How about Geology?
How about Mathmatics?
How about Astronomy?
How about Abortion?
How about Global Warming?
How about the "War" on christmas?
How about the "war" on the family?
How about Family Values?

I cannot see how that segment of the population has much of anything of value to contribute to any discussion. Even this one.

I mean if we have not much of anything of value to contribute . . .

Bryant

Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.

Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

http://www.cathnews.com/news/210/27.php">Vatican reasserts opposition to war in Iraq (from Oct. 2002)

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20051108/3929_United_Methodist_Bishops_Renew_Opposition_to_Iraq_War.htm">United Methodist Bishops Renew Opposition to Iraq War (from Nov. 2005, but "the denomination has largely stood by its constitutional opposition to war since Operation Iraqi Freedom began in 2003.")

On Global Warming: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/050908feaglobal.380f464.html">Evangelicals press to fight global warming

Do you need more?

I think you have religious organizations confused with the Republican officials that have co-opted religion to further their agenda. Nearly all religions are pro-peace.

eom

and get all the attention,
it is also mainly the same folks pontificating on TV.

in fact, more US churches publicly opposed this war, than any other,

Show me the practical demonstration of this when George Bush was elected twice by the evangelicals / religious people in general.

Try to explain why that "stubborn 22%" who still support George Bush and his war are almost entirely religious people.

It is absolutely mind blowing that you could even try to make the argument that somehow Christians had noting to do with the war in Iraq, and did absolutely nothing to support it.

This war was waged on the Muslims by the Christians to steal their oil. It is strikingly similar to the Chrisians killing the Native Americans to steal their land, or the Christians enslaving the Blacks and forcing them into slavery throughout the "Bible Belt". Christians have killed and murdered more people than any other religious group. Admit it, and get over it.

All Bush supporters are religious =/= All religious people support Bush

About 75% of Americans are Christian, but Bush never got anywhere near 75% of the popular vote. So there have to be a lot of Christians who voted for other candidates.

there were several anti-war rallies sponsored by the local churches. The only church that did not participate was the Baptist church. Your town was apparently different.

I am at work and don't want to spend the time to look up a bunch of links that you will probably refute anyway but here is a quick bit for you.

My father is a Deacon in the Episcopal church.

He and all of the clergy that I have had interactions with through him support the right to choose, they would prefer that people didn't seek abortion but do not condemn the right to do so.

I don't understand your geology, mathematics (although my dad was an Econ major with a minor in Math at the U of MN)and astronomy.

They are all environmentalists, believe that global warming is a major crisis and actually have preached on the idea that conservation and the environment tie nicely in with the christian ideal of being good stewards of god's gifts.

The war on christmas is a fundamentalist/right wing issue not a christian issue.

The episcopal church has a gay bishop and the church I attended when living at home with my parents frequently had a gay priest visit to give the homily. We actually had a lesbian priest at my church for a number of years. They in no way believe that homosexuality is an assault on the "family."

"Family Values" is another issue for only the fundamentalist/right wingers not christians.

religious people.

I know many Christians (Church of England and Catholic) who are more socialist-inclined than I am; fully accept evolution and other aspects of modern science; believe in the problem of global warming; accept women's right to choose; and would never dream of using such expressions or concepts as 'war on Christmas' or 'war on the family'.

I am a strong believer in total church/state separation, and oppose the existence of an Established Church in the UK (though since only about 30% of Brits go to church anyway, it's becoming less and less relevant). However, that doesn't mean that all Christians are RW fundies.

What mega-churches broadcasting to millions of homes have taken anti-war, liberal stances?

the poster I was replying to insinuated that "christians" were all that way.

My guess is that you mentally blocked out any progressive Christians who opposed the war because they don't fit your "all religious people are Republican fundies" stereotype.

"the religious people who dominate television are Republican fundies".

A little harder to argue with that, wouldn't you say?

But you are right, it is a shame that liberal Christians seem excluded from being on TV.

Bryant

Documentation, please.

And BTW, as a secular Jew and devout atheist, I certainly have no axe to grind for Christianity! But I am against all forms of stereotyping.

But I'm with you on the stereotyping thing. Cheers! :)

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=103

2004 Protestants: 59-40 for Bush.
2004 Catholics: 52-47 for Bush, even when the other choice was an anti-war Catholic. Restrict it to just the white Catholics and they break even stronger for Bush, 56-43.

and 40 percent not?

Why are 52 percent of Catholics relevant and 47 not? I mean it's not like it's a blow out, is it?

Bryant

Some here appeared to want us to believe virtually every Christian denomination, and their followers, were categorically against the war from the beginning.

The denominations' official doctrinal stances WERE against the war, but some of the followers within those denominations chose to exercise their freedom to have an opinion different from what the church espoused. It happens all the time.

In recent years, however, there has been a movement to try and influence denominational doctrine from the inside to make it more conservative. These are usually the members who are the loudest and draw the most attention.

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

If anything, progressive Christians should get support from other progressives to stop these attempts from happening, instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

(NOW I see what southern democrats feel like, trying to defend themselves!)

I fully understand the concept of "having it both ways."

What is happening is an attack of conservative christians on the traditional mainline church. They've done it with school boards. If you can't understand that, I can't help you. I've tried to explain it. I've tried to ask for help for progressive Christians in the fight, only to get snark in return.

If you can't see we're on the same side, I really can't help you.

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer

First you appear to want us to believe that tons and tons of religious groups were opposed to the war from the onset. Then you back off, well, lots of religious organizations opposed it but their members were free to hold a contrary opinion. And now it's a vocal group of conservatives taking everything over making it only LOOK like you're wrong, but really you're not.

I do not dispute that fundies have gained control over many churches and school boards. That is a red herring you are introducing, a straw man position I do not hold.

Could you point me to someone who said that virtually every christian denomonation and their folloewers were categorically against the war?

If I had claimed someone DID actually say that, you'd really have me in a spot! Too bad I didn't.

Well you do think that some participating in this discussion are trying to lead you to believe that virtually all christian denominations and their followers opposed the war. Is that a fair statement?

Try looking at the first reply.

I do find the Blanket Condemnation of the initial post (who went on to repeat his Blanket Condemnation) more problematic than the Blanket Defense of the first reply, of course. But yeah, that was a blanket Defense and inaccurate at best.

Bryant

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

at least it does in the contemporary american religous sense.

Think with your brain and not your emotions.

But the millions of American Christians who oppose the war? Why don't they count?

Bryant

The problem is that there was no organized voice opposing the war when it started. If you are completely honest with yourself, and remember the run up to the war, there was NO organized religious opposition to the war.

Even today, the religious voice condemning the bush family wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is scarce. The vocal Christians and politically active religious groups were, in fact, overwhelmingly in favor of the war and of the support of George Bush.

True also is that almost all of the misinformation concerning wepons of mass destruction and other key developments were not only endorsed from the pulpit, but actually orginated there.

Recent case in point:

Several conservative organizations are actively seeking preachers who will politically endorse candidates, and who are willing to deliver focused sermons on political topics. All materials and data will be provide to these denominatons for free, and if the IRS decides to sue for tax exempt status, they promise to represent them in court.

You simply cannot deny that the "stubborn 22%" that continue to support George Bush, his policies, and the war in Iraq are overwhelmingly conservitave christian fundamentalists.

You have been lying with dogs all these years. Now, do not bitch about others who do not want exposure to the disease caused by your fleas.

Of course your other claims (that there was no organized Christian opposition to the war, for example) have been refuted by others more knowledgeable than me.

Bryant

"Gods Chosen People"? I guess that means that the rest of us are not chosen and lesser than. Does that sound bigoted to anyone? sheesh.

Ok, maybe the lying with dogs was a bit over the top, but my point is simple. It is you who chooses to associate with and to defend the religious who started and support this war, and your only defense is to deny the obvious truth that Christians in mass were waiving patriotic flags and supporting George Bush in his desires to wage war on the Muslims. Your only defense is to claim that it never happened. Get a clue already.

Where were you in 2001? To speak out against George Bush, or to question the war, or to question the validity of other religious positions on homosexuality, abortion, intelligent design, the alleged war on christmas, the alleged war on the family, support for the torture bill, bla bla bla. Maybe you should listen to the christian radio that is broadcast 24-7 around here. It is truly evil.

The absolute flaw in Christianity, and the prescribed Biblical study method lies in the fact that one must read it or analyze it from a preconceived position. The answer is always given before the evidence is read.

1) The Bible is Gods Word
2) The Bible is flawless and absolutely true
3) Pre-determined people and cultures in the Bible are Holy regardless of their actions
4) Pre-determined people and cultures in the Bible are evil regardless of their actions
5) Christians can do no wrong
6) If someone rationally criticizes a religious person, then they are bigoted, painting with a broad brush, and "all" christians
are being "persecuted"

Take this simple discussion in the broad sense. Doesn't anyone have the right to question the actions and beliefs of the "holy"?
Do I not have the right to defend my children against the evil of contemporary american religiosity? Do I not have the right to block these charlatans on my own TV set without superstitious religious fear attempting to force itself upon my own consciousness?

Look around and find out how many Christians and Catholics did speak out against the war. Granted the majority of them went along with the war which is shameful, but there are significant minorities who opposed it. By the same token many Christians have taken some pretty hateful positions; I'm not going to deny that.

Where we disagree is that you seem bound and determined to say that the majority is the whole. To say that all Christians are guilty of these crimes and that those few Christians who don't share these hateful positions should still be ashamed for being associated with Christianity.

Your arguments do seem eerily reminiscent of those arguments by right wing anti-Muslim Bigots who suggest that the solution to the war on Terror is to stamp out Islam.

Bryant

I totally agree

"Granted the majority of them went along with the war which is shameful, but there are significant minorities who opposed it. By the same token many Christians have taken some pretty hateful positions; I'm not going to deny that."

I do not understand this part, it seems to contradict the earlier statement.

"Where we disagree is that you seem bound and determined to say that the majority is the whole."

It seems to me that a majority can be a leading indication of qualities shared by a class or group. Granted there will be some variations, but it is true that a staggering 80% of fundamentalists supported George Bush twice, and a simple majority of other religious people did as well.

Remember ..... Slavery flourished in the "Bible Belt", and the "Manifest Destiny" was a christian tome where preachers determined that it was Gods Will for whites to kill the native americans. Both doctrines began in Christian churches and flourished throughout the bible belt. Most racist right wing extremist groups today are still fundamentalist Christian. From the Klan to Aryans. This is not a band of athiests. These are hard core religious people.

I mean assuming I bought all your arguments (which to be clear I don't based as they are on condemning me for the actions of people who are not me), what would you then expect me to do?

Bryant

If it were me, then I would evacuate the notion that criticism of one christian is equal to the criticism of all christians. You bring this problem upon yourself by insisting to be included in the same class as the evil-doers.

Why not say .... Yes, I am a christian, and this type of thing truly offends me when it is done by other christians. (only if in fact it does)

Try to separate yourself from the the political puppets who use religion to justify their bad personalities and motives.

I was a christian at one time but have totally excluded myself from that sect due to the behaviour of the majority. I simply do not believe that God would associate with such a group.

Answer me this:

By defination, God should get what he wants. Otherwise, He or She would not be God.

1) why is my money necessary when the universe was created without it?
2) as God writes all the rules, why is a sacrifice necessary for forgiveness?

So, God is sooooo insecure that he must torture and kill his only son to gain the esteem necessary to forgive the rest of us for being the "sinners" that he created in the first place? I dont buy it.

Furthermore, torturing and killing anything is not "love", and I dont give a crap if some stupid book claims that it is. To me, it is mental illness to believe in the incoherent salvation message offered by the fundamentalists.

It is nothing more than superstition, and it takes lots of courage to break free from it.

I will NOT have my children abused and damaged by TV preachers.

If i choose to continue being a Christian? No thanks. I choose not to accomadate your bigotry.

As for your specifically religious problems with Christianity, you should take them to the religion forum and keep them out of General Discussion.

Bryant

Who asked you to apologize? Not me. Nice strawman argument though.

I simply suggested that you find a way to distance yourself from any christians who really are not acting like one. BECAUSE YOU ASKED. Why ask me how to sort them out? If you cannot do it, then you leave me with the idea that all are pretty much one in the same.

Thou shalt not attack a fellow christian even if he is a pedophile right?

The really annoying part is that christians will do NOTHING to police their own faith. When someone criticizes obvously bad behavior (like that of the majority of TV preachers) then there is Hell to pay when weeping christians gather to moan about being persecuted. Most often, religious attacks continue and wind up exactly where this discussion did.

Having been down this road hundreds of times, and is why i genuinely feel that any important discussions should be left to those better able to cope with it. I have heard and seen very few worthwhile contributions from those who profess faith in the past decade. Any discussion always gets distracted into a bizzare realm where the idea of "because God says so" can be invoked anytime reason begins to prevail.

Figure out a way to seperate yourself from the right wing fundamentalists. Talk about it. Save your own faith.

DO NOT EXPECT ME TO DO IT FOR YOU.

Look if Muslims don't like being stereotyped they should stand up to the terrorists - but since I never see any Muslims standing up to the terrorists, it follows that they are all complicit in terrorism.

Look if Blacks want to participate fully in society they should get decent jobs and work for a living - but since I never see any Blacks doing that, it follows that they are lazy good for nothings crying racism rather than working.

As for this line "Having been down this road hundreds of times, and is why i genuinely feel that any important discussions should be left to those better able to cope with it." i take it that means you feel DU Christians have only limited value at best?

Bryant

I was going to apologize for being too blunt, but having read your response, you have again changed my mind.

You have misrepresented what I said by insuinating that it is logically equal to YOUR stupid comments. It is not. Look up strawman argument sometime. Your picture should be alongside the defination

Why do you expect me to defend your faith? With reasoning as corrupt as yours, why should I not be hesitant to discuss anything of importace with someone like you? I am absolutely not interested in spending eternity with a bunch of people who think and act like that. Talk about Hell.

Christians attack and criticize everyone and almost everything around them. They even will condemn innocent children to hell because they will not recite some bullshit plege that only satisfies the insecurites of the holy.

I see that California has legalized Gay Marriage. Maybe there is a God afterall. Talk about religious bigotry. Have you lost much sleep over who loves who lately? Does the thought of butt sex drive you into an insanely selfrighetous rage? Why do you give a crap about who wants to marry who? Remember, it was the religious who refused to allow interracial marriages as well.

Take the massive log out of your (and your faiths) eye before trying to tell the rest of us how to live. As for me, no more preachers on my TV.

Stick that in your bible and set it on fire.

But don't worry - bigotry against Christians is protected at DU.

Bryant

No Bryant, the arguments are not even remotely the same. First of all, they are YOUR arguments. Second of all, you are comparing a completely different set of people and circumstances. No correlation between them whatsoever.

Remember Bryant, your bigotry is also protected here at DU. Except in your case, you call your bigotry the "word of God".

Now for a little bible lesson. You desperately need one, so sit on down with a pencil and paper.

In Genesis, the serpent tricked Eve by saying "Didn't God say that you were not to eat the fruit from that tree?" "Oh no, Eve replied, the fruit I am not supposed to eat is in the center of the garden on that tree over there".

Look what happened here. The Serpent falsely accused Eve which tempted her to justify her behavior using the rules he set forth. In doing so, the serpent was educated and Eve was tricked by the false accusation.

Now look at your comment below:

"But don't worry - bigotry against Christians is protected at DU."

You make the false accusation of bigotry against Christians and so tempt the unsuspecting into proving they are not what you falsely accuse them of. Sound familiar? Are you indirectly appealing to the moderators? Tempting people to act on what is not true?

Childish debate tactics like tantrums, false dilemma's, diversionary tactics, citing "emotional logic" as fact, and yes the Strawman argument are counterproductive and hold little value in any adult discussion.

You have elegantly proven my point. Thank you.

My cable box is for my own discretionary use. NOT YOURS. I will gladly program in sex, nudity, and vulgar language while excluding religion and violence. I happen to feel the world would be a much better place if everyone did it.

I would be pleased to listen to one single positive thing that religion has accomplished so long as there is objective proof and evidence to back it up. I offer to change my opinion in the balance. It must be directly relevant to contemporary TV Evangelism which is what was being discussed here.

See you are a dumbass bigoted Atheist (obviously I don't know if you are an atheist, but I am assuming) but I don't generalize from my experience with you. I don't assume that all Atheists are dumbass bigots. Many atheists are nice and pleasant and willing to take people as they rather then condemning whole swaths of the human race for having a different opinion on religion then they do.

Nor do I blame Atheists for not shutting up the stupider Atheists, like C. Hitchens (who I condemn not for his work on atheism but for his simplistic support of the Invasion of Iraq).

Of course if you belong to some other religion or philosophy rest assured I don't condemn the rest of that philosophy or religion based on your stupid ass example.

Bryant

Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Examples of Straw Man

Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."

Copied and pasted in its entirety from: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.

Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

Also Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive.

Description of Personal Attack
A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.

In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.

Examples of Personal Attack

"This theory about a potential cure for cancer has been introduced by a doctor who is a known lesbian feminist. I don't see why we should extend an invitation for her to speak at the World Conference on Cancer."

Also Known as: Black & White Thinking.

Description of False Dilemma
A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":

Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
Claim Y is false.
Therefore claim X is true.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example:

Bill: "Jill and I both support having prayer in public schools."
Jill: "Hey, I never said that!"
Bill: "You're not an atheist are you Jill?"

Doesn't say much for these organized religions that they can't get their flock to agree with their stated positions, does it?

52 percent of Catholics voted for Bush when the other candidate was an anti-war catholic that only 47% voted for. That doesn't seem relevant to the discussion? If we were to believe you, the catholics should have been tripping over themselves to vote for Kerry.

should have been tripping over themselves to vote for Kerry?

This is interesting - the OPs point was that virtually all Christians are in favor of war and killing Muslims. Some of us said that's not entirely true, there are anti war Christians and somehow that's become all Christians are opposed to the war?

At any rate for the record, the majority, but not an overwhelming majority, of all Christians supported the war and President Bush. But a significant minority of Christians opposed the war and spoke out against it. Is that clear enough?

Bryant

This is an old topic here on DU so I'm sure you could do a search if you are so inclined.

Council of Bishops calls for immediate Iraq withdrawal (Methodist)

http://tinyurl.com/5jqfzl

Interfaith fast calls for end to Iraq war (Methodist/interfaith)

http://tinyurl.com/5opjp6

Methodists call for expulsion of Bush and Cheney from UMC

http://tinyurl.com/4redvf

Incidentally, the Methodists are also fighting against Bush's Presidential Library being at SMU, a Methodist School.

"Unwise, Immoral and Illegal" (Presbyterian USA)

http://tinyurl.com/4q79wq

Pope JP II against war

http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html

Catholics for an end to the war in Iraq

http://www.catholicsforanend.org/news-cns-20070713.php

Christian ethicists against the war

http://tinyurl.com/4hq6zy

Episcopal Peace Fellowship (ecumenical DC march against the war)

http://www.epfnational.org/publish/CPWIsuccess.shtml

Edited to add: Iraq statements

http://www.ncccusa.org/iraq/iraqstatements.html

Too bad the memo did not get recieved by the general membership. If it had, we would be living in an entirely different world today.

I dare you. I double dog dare you.

They've been locked out just like you and I have been locked out of the political process because the rich and powerful are not served by enlightenment of any sort.

Whether or not one feels a godly presence is moot. The point is that these craven men who push hate, war and misery in the name of their god are doing it in the name of an imaginary friend, a captive deity wholly in the service of the rich and powerful, a weak deity who relies on money and flattery to exist.

Using a parental control to block the hate seems like a reasonable thing to do.

I just resent being lumped in with them. Jesus said you'll know folks by the spiritual fruit they produce. That means being discerning and understanding that just because someone says they are a Christian (e.g. Hitler) doesn't necessarily mean they are one, if they don't pass the smell test. I wouldn't put Al Gore or Jimmy Carter in the same category as these televangelists, for sure. The OP said the religious are wrong on just about every issue, and I disagree with that. Some of them are, definitely. But there ARE progressive Christians. If the OP didn't mean to include progressive Christians, then they should have said so.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004406277_evangvote11m.html

Not "mainstream" enough.

Don't use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, please.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/notruescotsman.html

Hitler was a Christian because he said he was. Christians have done lots of bad things. The Bible tells people they should stone their neighbors for wearing mixed-fiber (cotton and polyester)clothes, eating shellfish, or committing adultery. So strictly speaking, yes, Christians are urged to be violent, and some of them have been. Some of them are still now violent, for example, abortion-clinic bombers.

Christianity is not all sweetness and light, and you cannot say that "true Christians" are the good ones.

The good Christians, IMO, are the ones that don't judge others, don't hate others, and don't get in my face and confront me about my beliefs.

although when I encountered them on public access by accident, they were good for a laugh.

I happened across a program in which some fundies were lambasting my church (I mean my parish in particular, not just my denomination) because, according to them, its mission statement "was the gay agenda, letter for letter."

I couldn't recall exactly what my church's mission statement was, so I went and looked it up. Here it is:

"(Name of parish)is a welcoming faith community called by God to peace and reconciliation
through inspiring worship,spiritual growth,passionate hospitality,and service to others
in the love of Jesus Christ."

If that's the "gay agenda," I"m all for it. :-)

But seriously, I think it was Deserted Rose who pointed out the attempts of right-wingers to stir up trouble in the mainstream denominations, funded by the Olin Foundation and other usual suspects. The main agent for this is the so-called Institute on Religion and Democracy.

Here's the lowdown on them. Note that they're headed by Robert Bork.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1496.html

They're among the forces egging on the conservative factions of the mainline denominations.

The problem is that Christians read the bible from a pre-determined point of view.

1) This is Gods word
2) Select people are "Holy" (in spite of their actions)
3) To be interpreted literally
4) Torturing and killing ones son is a proof of "love"
5) Belief in spite of contrary evidence is proof of faith and "holiness"
6) The combining of a sentenace here with another one out of context there.

These taught "skills" have rotted the brains of most fundamentalists rendering most incapable of critical thinking. They are simply too superstitious and fearful to question.

Now, if you read a story in todays newspaper about someone who took their only son into the woods, built an alter to God, and killed him in a sacrificial ceramony, would you automatically assume that person was "Holy" and "obeying God", or that they were mentally ill (at least) and should be arrested.

The same common sense reasoning skill does not apply to the bible and its advocates.

I see little value in the popular american religious opinion today. It is little more than conservative political B.S.

the TV remote to skip over the stations. But that won't send a message to my cable company.

Not for the religion, which I didn't watch but for the rest of their programing. It is crap, especially what they call news. It is a joke and I could not see paying any more to surf the channels and find nothing of interest.

only for myself, because the cats don't have the right digits to use a remote. I basically blocked all the religious (fire and brimstone) channels from the guide so that I never see them. But I have also blocked all the sports channels and such, too, because I'm not a huge sports fan, and there is no one here to argue about it with me. :)

If you fall asleep with the TV on Saturday night, you can end up with Pat Robertson talking to your subconscious while you sleep.

That's why I've blocked all the religious stuff on the regular channels (along with the infomercials).

I tried to block a few who have popped up on regular network channels, and I am unable to block a single program. I have to block the entire channel. Maybe they cannot get their message out on their own channels because nobody watches.

Especially when the elderly may be in less than secure financial situations!

When my father was dying in the nursing home, these fundamentalists kept stopping in to talk to him. I always knew they were there because they left those little tracts.

One day (and this is the honest truth) I stopped to visit, and two of them were there. They were asking my father all kinds of questions .... where did you go to school, what was your mothers maiden name .... and things like that. The second man was writing down the answers, and even asking him to spell words.

I politely told them that I was there to pick up my father, and that they should leave now, and they arrogantly said "well, we need a few more minutes"

I went straight to the nurses station and got a male nurse. I took him back to my fathers room and said "under no circumstances are these two men to be allowed to visit privately with my father.

The male nurse asked if they had relatives in the home, and one piped up .. We are all Gawds children.

They left hastily, security was called, and it was learned that these two had been doing the same thing with other elderly people, and even been ushered to the door on at least two seperate occasions.

freekin spooky I tell ya

in groups from a local fundy church, going into rooms and doing their thing.

When we'd spot them, we'd throw them out immediately. Sick people don't need the kind of "comfort" that sends them to hell unless they accept the silly interpretation of deity from the fundy church. The patients always thanked us profusely.

We threatened them not with hospital security but with the city police and a big fat lawsuit. Eventually we got them to stop.

If you have a relative in the hospital or a nursing home, you have the right to restrict visitors and keep these scumbags at bay. Just make sure the nurses know what's going on.

It was an election year, and I wondered if my fathers "absentee" ballot was filled out by one of them.

Not only is this a big problem in the USA, but many countries are not allowing aid workers any more due to Christian extremism

;)

NOT the movie. The book. Whoever already read it know what I'm on about. :evilgrin:

one of my all time favs!

episcopal, quaker and menonite to name a few are quite progressive and are not at all affiliated with the televangelist idiots.

If there was an Amish televangelist on TV, I might actually watch him.

thing might be a hurdle to overcome with the amish. ;)

sheesh

how about .... Nobody goes to heaven if they do not believe in Jesus?

Broad brushing and lumping other groups is ok only if the religiously insane do it?

But you, non-believer, are fair game.

Nancy Grace, that racist guy on CNN whose name I can never remember, and a bunch of similar crap.

I would love to see religious filth removed from the airwaves. The world would be a better, and more peaceful, place.

... they want to have a must-carry rule for "religious" programing:

Here is a link from Concerned Wenches for America:


CWA Says Cable Choice is Consumer Choice 3/15/2006

Washington, D.C. — Concerned Women for America (CWA) says that cable choice, the option that allows cable customers to choose which channels they wish to subscribe to, is the only solution to the ever-increasing problem of indecency on cable stations.

“The American people are demanding cable choice because they want control over their TV screens,” said Lanier Swann, CWA’s Director of Government Relations. “Families do not want to be taken advantage of any longer. As Americans see more and more filth filling their cable channels, they are demanding an opportunity to opt out of having to view and subsidize such inappropriate programming.

“The FCC’s recent report confirms what we’ve been saying all along - cable choice is in the best interest of the consumer. The report indicates that customers could save up to 13% on their monthly cable bill. It clearly defeats opponent’s claims that cable choice would cost consumers more money. Cable choice would put money into consumer’s hands. The report further shows that cable choice is indeed economically feasible, despite false claims from cable companies.

“Cable choice is all around better for the buyer. It gives viewers power to choose which channels come into their homes and saves them money at the same time. Cable millionaires are the only ones benefiting from the current ‘all or nothing’ system. The rest of us are suffering from their greed and unwillingness to listen to customers needs.

“Cable providers are now without excuse. It is time to respond to consumers’ demands and finally give American families what they deserve: choice.”

For Information Contact:
Natalie Bell
(202) 488-7000
media.cwfa.org

More:
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/10326/MEDIA/misc/index.htm

This clearly shows the intent of televised religion to shove their beliefs on the unsuspecting. They call it "evangelizing", and feel duty bound to attack us where we gather or live.

I have to pay for good quality porn and vulgarity. Maybe the religious should have to specificaly order and pay for their good quality church.

Cable A'La Carte would be a great change. Oops, some do not want to play by the same rules they insist upon enacting.

You heard it here first.

as well as Fauxpsuedo News, Cnn and Cnn headline news. Any network that will pay Glenn Beck wont get my support in any form.

the cable, I do delete Fox News and the religious channels from the lineup so that when I surf through, I don't hit those channels.
Works for me.

Nobody was around, and i locked out Faux News. Probably not the right thing to do, but i don't care.
The Professor

I have done the same at my house but I add the Country Music Channel to the list of those things blocked.

I didn't know you hated the Dixie Chicks so much as to block CMC. ;-)

http://www.musicrowdemocrats.com/

Democrats and Country Music

I find it interesting that so many people are talking about Democrats in Nashville suddenly having the "courage" to admit that they're Democrats. Why should it take courage to admit membership in America's oldest existing political party? Many people consider the modern Democratic Party's first president to be Davidson County's own Andrew Jackson, 176 years ago.

To hear some people tell it, you'd think we were saying we're in the Nazi Party or the Communist Party. This demonization of Democrats is right-wing propaganda that goes way beyond the sphere of conservative talk radio. Maybe it did take a little courage for us to "come out," but if that's so, then that just proves that we were long overdue. We have to make up our minds that we absolutely will not let our enemies get away with lying about us, and the best way to start is for us to stop believing those lies ourselves.

Just as Republican PR has given birth to the notion that it is now unSouthern to be a Democrat, they have also politicized OUR MUSIC. In a recent article, journalist Beverly Keel wrote that one might listen to country radio these days and get the impression that they were hearing the music of the Republican Party. I found that upsetting because I knew she was telling the truth. I won't open up that can of worms, the politicization of country music, but anyone who saw the crowd at the Belcourt Cinema on February 5 knows that the business end of country music in Nashville is NOT solidly Republican!

Country music is the music of everyday people. Why would we NOT belong to the party that sympathizes with the underdog? Country music is the music about families and mommas and babies. Why would we NOT belong to the party that cares about health care for seniors and children? Why would people in the music of wide open spaces and green green grass NOT be in the party that wants to protect God's green earth from the polluting global-warming big shots that the Bush administration loves and defers to?

More:
http://musicrowdemocrats.com/index.php?option=com_magazine&func=show_article&id=1

:yourock:

I mean why the hell is Girls Gone Wild and that "male enhancement" crap being advertised on the Daily Show and Colbert Report spots? That's hardly their demographic. I can't change the channel fast enough.

So for now I have Faux and MTV blocked. Fortunately my Cable provider does not broadcast the mega church cult shows like multi-millionaire Osteen and his wacko followers. The idiot racist World Harvest church here just ran a commercial announcing Ollie North's guest service :puke:

The religion doesn't bother me so much. I just have to remind the kid from time to time the same thing I do with professional wrestling.

Also the spam channels (and damn, there are a lot of them).

Basically, I just sit there mezmerized by the sheer lunacy of those shows. Every now and then, a stupefied gasp comes out of my mouth. I sit there, trying to understand the people on the stage with the preachers. Why are they there? How do their minds work? How can they be conned so easily?

My favourite religious show, the one I find the most entertaining, is the Jack Van Impe show (I think that's his name). It's this guy and his crazy ass wife doing predictions based on the bible. The weird thing about Jack, that I don't sense from other TV preachers, is his honesty and earnest belief in what he is saying. I don't find Benny Hinn and other like him as interesting because they are just con men who don't seem to really believe what they are saying.

Sometimes Vision Tv gets some weird Islamic shows as well, that I also watch.

I think my gf, who is a christian, thinks I'm a bit of a freak for watching that stuff. But I'm drawn to religious people, simply because I can't understand how their minds work. All that religious stuff seems to childish to me.

I got a kick out of the cooking shows on FamilyNet.

On one episode, some old lady had a demonstration on how to make sloppy joes. I'm not making that up.

The Yahweh ben Yahweh program. Some petty criminal who started a cult and claims to be the second coming... Had some dudes killed years ago and went to jail for it.. they call it his "crucifixion"... he recently died but his program still runs and it HILARIOUS!!! It's just some people reading bible verses and then interpretting them word by word with incorrect definitions so that it fits into Yahweh ben Yahweh's cult.

Any one who knows anything about the basic timeline of history would know he's bullshit... Yahweh ben Yahweh claims that all american history is wrong and that America has existed for 6000 years... All the times "israelites" are mentioned in the bible, they are actually referring to African-AMERICANS from thousands of years ago. Not Africans, African-Americans. From 1000's of years ago.

Everytime I flip to this show I can't stop watching. The word-by-word interpretations are hypnotic.

because their churches told them to?
I would bet millions did.

on my mom's TV.Also blocked fux news and the Court channel.
She seems to be a lot saner now.

We blocked out all of the religious channels, all of the shopping channels, and all variations of FOX news.

it's already blocked on mine- i wouldn't want to end up there by accident, or have company try to switch to it(obnoxious brother-in-law -i'm looking at YOU).

lock out all the RW BS and the porn too, while you're at it! ;) I got rid of the cable when my youngest was in junior high (7th grade) and we had only had it a short time. My older two didn't have cable TV either! All of them were to busy with after school homework and 'being kids' and playing sports, music, reading and outside raising hell with their friends while growing up!

I also get rid of fox, mtv, mexico(?)t.v. & all shopping channels.

You do not have a politically active band of shopping channel fundamentalists attacking you for using your own conscious. Furthermore, they do not call you a bigot, or condemn you to hell for simply applying the parental lock.

I congratulate you on your sense of reason and willingness to act on it.

Sure it looks like harmless cartoons and old reruns, then Bam! Pat Robertson in your face! Sneaky bastard.