Christians should unite with atheists to defend secularism

[rug]

The Christian community in Britain is in danger of being hijacked by a bigoted, paranoid and out-of-touch elite who don't represent its views. It's time for Christians to embrace secularism

Posted by
Martin Robbins
Friday 17 February 2012 10.19 EST
guardian.co.uk

If atheists are bemused by the latest attacks on secularism, spare a thought for Britain's Christians. Most agree with equality for homosexuals, support the separation of church and state, and share the basic principles of humanism. Many of the comments supposedly made on their behalf must be as alien to them as they are to the rest of us.

The 'war on secularism' is a battle over privilege. On one side, secularists – whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist or other – believe in freedom of (and from) religion; that faith is a personal choice and the state should be neutral in such matters. Opposing them, an elitist minority of Christians believe that one group – themselves – should enjoy privileges that others do not share.

Privilege is like swimming in a pool of marshmallows and beer; it sounds enjoyable, but to quote Bill Hicks on beer, "it makes you stupid, slow, and docile, and that's the way we like you to be." Privilege is patronizing and infantilizing, and leads to underachievement and stagnation; but most of all it reinforces the status quo – something that tends to benefit those at the top more than anyone else.

Just as feminism ultimately benefits men, secularism is the best option for Christians in the long term. Sadly, a self-interested, parasitic elite within the Christian community are prepared to do anything to cling to their own positions of power, even it means misleading and undermining their own flocks.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2012/feb/17/1

[laconicsax]

1. Yes. Christians should unite with atheists to defend secularism.

Especially on left-wing discussion boards like this one

[rug]

4. And vice versa.

[laconicsax]

6. Do you have any evidence of Christians defending secularism against atheists?

[rug]

7. Sure.

Perhaps you should look instead of posing disingenuous questions and shrugging smileys.

[laconicsax]

8. Please present your evidence then. n/t

[rug]

9. No, I'm not in the mood for your silly games.

Google to your heart's content.

[laconicsax]

10. I'll take that as confirmation that you have no evidence. n/t

[rug]

11. Take it however you want.

It's insignificant.

[laconicsax]

13. I appreciate your support.

[mr blur]

20. Hey, laconicsax is only asking you to support your POV -

you're the one who brought it up. Why the need to be so hostile?

[skepticscott]

31. The need to be hostile and snarky

is simply a result of the need to post blatant falsehoods with impunity, because the truth doesn't fit with a mindset they are unable to abandon. Of course, it's questionable whether people of this ilk here really even deceive themselves with their evasions...they certainly don't fool anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

[rug]

64. Lol.

Admirable lack of hostility.

[Thats my opinion]

14. Agreed.

Now can we also agree that atheists ought to defend and unite with progressive Christians on boards like this one? Or do you suggest a one way street?

[laconicsax]

17. Well...

If you have an example of atheists on this board refusing to unite with progressive Christians to defend secularism, I'd like to see it, especially since your entire premise depends on it.

[Thats my opinion]

22. You bet!

How many hundred times have liberal religionists taken on sectarianism in the name of a secular validity, and instead of being affirming, those posts have been attacked, usually for something which was not in the original post at all. Why can't we affirm each other when our targets are the same? An example. A religious poster talks about a social issue and some snide attack comes back on why there is no evidence for a historical Jesus--which has nothing to do with the thread.

[darkstar3]

25. Examples are necessary. Your claims are sweeping and general.

[laconicsax]

29. That's not even close to what I asked.

Do you have an example of atheists on this board refusing to unite with progressive Christians to defend secularism?

Generalizations about atheists challenging the beliefs of "liberal religionists" are so far removed from what would constitute an answer that I wonder if you understand the question.

[cbayer]

33. I will give you one, but will not be goaded into digging up more.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=6833

I give you this one, because I think it's the most egregious.

I will also maintain that there are others here whose motivations are in line with this members.

OTOH, I think the vast majority of participants, both theists and atheists, share a common goal of promoting understanding of each other and moving towards a coalition to declaw the common enemy - the religious right.

[laconicsax]

37. Wow! I missed that thread.

I could niggle about that being about sharing "a common goal of promoting understanding of each other and moving towards a coalition to declaw the common enemy" and not defending secularism, but since you actually took the time to try to come up with an example, I won't.

[yellerpup]

2. I think they should too.

Secular society should be the hallmark of a democracy.

Edited to add: Especially on DU.

[Kurmudgeon]

3. Isn't freedom from religion too much like freedom from race, freedom from sects?

As I've said before, believe or don't, however you feel. Just allow others the same right.
If you allow the rich right wing elite to use the label "christian" for them to hide behind, you've already helped them in their pursuits.
I'm here, a lifelong Democratic voter to prevent right wing from doing the things they do and hopefully to work with people of a similar mindset. Instead, I find myself constantly having to defend my faith from being lumped in with the very right wing money worshippers I've tried to keep from power as best I can.
Take the time to see the difference, if you lump all Christians in with the right wing, you only help the right wing.

[laconicsax]

5. Not in the slightest.

Freedom from religion means having the freedom to practice your religion as you see fit, not as others would prefer you do.

It's a basic concept that isn't at all difficult to understand.

BTW: By taking offense at criticism of the "right wing money worshippers," you're actually lumping yourself in with them.

[Gore1FL]

12. You make a good point. The "Christian" brand has been poisoned by the fundies

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that there has not been an outspoken Christian opposition to that poisoning.

There is no reason, for example, that the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, for example, come forward and make a loud condemnation of Fred Phelps, take a stand against Robertson, or stand up and denounce the GOP's use of the church as a wedge issue.

But they don't. Neither do the Catholics, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Episcopalians, et al.


“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

- Edmund Burke

[Thats my opinion]

15. If you are under rhe impression

that the progressive church has not spoken and acted strongly and often, you just don't know what is going on.

[Gore1FL]

18. I apparently don't know what is going on.

Or it isn't being covered.

Do you have links to the Lutherans, Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, UCC, Methodists, or other major branch of Christianity (in the form of an official spokesman) making a stand against Robertson, Phelps, or the denunciation of the use of the Christian church as a a GOP wedge issue? I would like to see some. Which of those are considered progressive? I don't know. ELCA is pretty liberal. Any press release at all where a Christian church official of a major denomination will be fine, but I'd rather see it reported on in a major publication.

I look forward to being educated in this subject. Things are apparently better than I was last a witness to.


I know there are good people that are Christians. I would conceed that most Christians are good people. I would argue that a portion of those good people are misguided by fanaticism. They are the loud ones. They are the ones poisoning your brand.

[Leontius]

23. Do you not see some of the same problem on the secularists side of the spectrum?

i'm constantly reminded that all believers are deluded ignorant followers of bronze age myths by certain atheists, that there is no real difference between liberal Christians and rightwing fudementalist Christians, does that attitude add to a positive discussion about moving forward in a cooperative liberal agenda that benefits both sides?

[Gore1FL]

30. This sums up my feelings:

[img][/img]

[Leontius]

35. Why not answer the question I asked ?

[cleanhippie]

36. He did just answer it.

[Gore1FL]

42. I did answer

I don't care what you believe. Believe what ever you like.

I ask one thing: Don't force it on me or anyone else.

The only reason I would need to weigh someone beliefs and conclude they were deluded ignorant followers of bronze age myths, was if they instigated the discussion of them.

If the world could wrap it's collective head around that, we'd have thousands of fewer excuses to hate one another.

[Leontius]

43. No you did not answer my question , it had nothing to do religious belief

or nonbelief it had to do with the poisoning of the message those non confrontational atheists keep pushing that you don't care what is believed just don't push it on others by the vocal zealots who wish religion to be erased from society just like you claim the conservative Christians have done with the messsage of Christianity. Do you not see that as a problem?

[cleanhippie]

45. I think he already answered you.

This was his response.

[Gore1FL]

46. Atheism has no message, so there is nothing to poison.

The only reason athiests or agnostics speak out against religion is becasue someone keeps bringing up the conversation--typically in an effort to convert, "educate," or otherwise "save" them.

So to answer your wuestion for the third time now, "No."

Just to be clear, that was a a negative. It is the opposite of yes.

[Leontius]

47. Gotcha, the only side at fault is the religious one, so much for cooperation to

achieve solutions that benefits both points of view. Climb back down into your trench now and be safe.

[Gore1FL]

48. The side that is at fault

is the side that is proactive in trying to spread a message. One side has a message.

I think the problem here is that you are using the word "answer" when you want "agreement."

Atheists and agnostics don't want religions people to convert. We don't care (other than it would help lessen the number of people who get in our face about it while diluting the number of faces to get into for the remaining.)

When a religious person approaches an atheist or agnostic, they had best be prepared to defend what they are selling. If they can't, they aren't being persecuted, they are being out debated. The way to end it is for them to go away and minimally bother someone else, but preferably not bother anyone.

Can you name one example of an atheist or agnostic pro-actively recruiting?

I've backed up my point of view multiple times, multiple different ways. The solution that achieves both points of view is this:
[img][/img]

In short, don't talk to atheists or agnostics about religion, and atheists or agnostics won't have a reason to dismiss it as myth. I cannot spell it out any more clearly.

[Leontius]

50. No the problem is you don't even understand the question I am asking or

you just refuse to answer it because to admit that atheist anti-religious zealots who actively seek the removal of religious thought from society and publicly advocate the same are also posioning the message of tolerance and unity that could promote an understanding between both sides weaken your purity somehow, is that it. For some reason you seem afraid to admit that there is such a message even in the face of the comments here and by the self proclaimed spokemen of atheism.

[Gore1FL]

54. Removing it from society? If you mean the part where it is crammed down our throats, then yes.

But only religious people care what other religious people and non religious people think about religion.

I don't care if you worship cheesecake. You can do anything you want in the fulfilment of your religion that you want. If you try to get me to participate in your cheesecake worship, I will try to myself of you and your cheesecake fanaticism.

Please give an example. I am pretty sure that no matter what you come up with, we will be able to trace it back to someone with a religious agenda forcing their religion into someone else' face.

I am not afraid to admit anything to you. The answer to your question is either "no", or yo are not asking the correct question.

Let me be clear. There is NO secularist of any religious background that is hostile to anyone practicing their religion. That's what secularism is all about. The other thing that secularism is all about is the understanding that you will not try to force your beliefs on me.

The answer to your original question is still this:

[img][/img]

To take this a step further, if you do take your religion "penis" out and wave it around, rest assured I will deride it.

What aspect of this do you not get?

[cbayer]

49. If this is the case, then please explain to me why so many atheists and agnostics hang out in the

Religion group?

If you don't want to be exposed to people talking about their belief systems, why would you go to the place where that is the clearly stated subject matter?

Also, I disagree with you take on "conversion" by some atheists. I have repeatedly seen others encourage believers to abandon their beliefs or their institutions and "see the light". It's clearly proselytizing.

[Leontius]

51. What I find troubling is they can't even seem to admit that those who

have assumed the role of leaders and spokesmen that attack and seek the destuction of religious belief of any kind have any fault in the lack of desire of many believers to engage them, to find a common ground where intolerance, religious included, can be fought. Why should I believe that someone who thinks I have the reasoning ability of dogs is my friend an ally in such a fight any more than those who feel I have preverted the Christian faith by liberalism instead of a fundamentalist view of faith is my ally and friend? If both sides proclaim their goal is the destruction of what I believe and hold as right which do I turn to and support?

[cbayer]

52. Once identified as having no interest in forming an alliance of any kind, best to just stop engaging

IMHO

[Leontius]

56. True enough, but I still hope that reason will prevail from one side or the other.

[Gore1FL]

58. If that logic would extend to the spreading of one's religion

there would be no reason to need an alliance to build a secular society. It would inherently exist.

[Gore1FL]

61. I am not even talking to you about specific religious issues or beliefs

I find it hilarious how you are framing this... An agnostic is so sure of his beliefs he wants to destroy yours...

Re-read the posts above. My premise was that Christianity has been poisoned by the fundamentalists. (You seem to aggree).

I said Churches, such at the Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. have not stepped up in an official way to stop it.

I've asked for links when I was told they had. They have not been forthcoming.

I've been told that atheists, agnostics, and secularists are all about ridding the world of religion. I have asked for link. They have not been forthcoming.

Now, somehow it is my fault that you get lumped together when your churches don't make the critical differentiations. I stated above that Christians are mostly well-meaning people. I am not attacking you, your religion, nor am I trying to change you.

So let me reiterate for the 9,000,000 time.

1> Christianity's brand has been poisoned.
2> Part (or all) of the cure would be for the larger religions to stand up to those who have (in your words) "a fundamentalist view of faith".
3> Secularists don't care what you believe. They also don't want to hear about it.
4> No one has suggested that the "destruction of what (you) believe and hold as right" is necessary.

You aren't persecuted. You simply aren't wrapping your head around the fact that there is a difference between 1> stopping you from believing something and 2> not wanting to hear you endless argue how cool it would be if I thought just like you.

Learn that difference and you can be a Christian secularist.

[Gore1FL]

57. I came to this thread

Because it was cycling through latest threads.

Do you have links to an atheist "proselytizing" unprovoked?

[cbayer]

60. Fair enough. I have often ended up in groups because I picked something off the latest page

But I still wonder why someone who says that "only religious people care what other religious people and non religious people think about religion" can make that statement once they have come to this group.

Clearly there are a substantial number of atheists who enjoy participating in this group and do care what other atheists and religious people think about religion.

If you look around here, you will see what I am talking about.

Please don't get me wrong. I don't object to your or anyone's participation here, only to the position that it is only the religious that have as a goal conversion of some sort.

[skepticscott]

59. Oh, for pity's sake! How FREAKING many times does this have to be explained?

And how many times do people like you have to read it before you stop asking atheists why they have any place here?

How many of the following are: A. Not legitimate subjects for a Religion Group; and B. Not subjects of legitimate concern for atheists or subjects on which atheists can have legitimate and relevant opinions?

-The question of whether gods exist or not

-The nature of any gods that do exist

-The interaction of religion and government, including the motivation of laws and public policy (set by what is supposed to be a
secular government), solely or primarily by religious fundamentalists

-The treatment of atheists in a society where most of the population is religious

-The question of whether religion is, on balance, beneficial or detrimental to society


I could list a lot more, but give us your take on those. Then tell us why you STILL need to have this explained after spending enough time on this board to presume to be a host.

[darkstar3]

62. You've had this explained to you no less than 3 times here on DU3.

For you to repeat this question so many times while bearing the responsibility of a host of this group is entirely inappropriate.

Shame on you.

[cleanhippie]

34. Do you believe that jesus was the son of god, died for your sins, and was resurrected?

[skepticscott]

27. Well, ironically the fundies will say

that Christianity has been poisoned by liberals and progressives, who have ignored the moral teachings of the Bible and accommodated rampant relativism. And they are just as correct as you are.

[Gore1FL]

32. The difference, of course,

is that they are actually saying it at high levels of church and political authority.

The bottom line is I really don't care about the internal conflicts within Christianity. I was explaining to a Christian who did not understand why the lumping-together takes place and I explained because one side either fails to accomplish or fails to try top-level condemnation of the hijacking of their religion.

I don't have a horse in the race.

[Humanist_Activist]

16. No, the government should never be in a position to favor one religion over another...

why is that so hard to understand, and that is all secularism really means, to prevent the government, any government from putting itself in a position of favoritism towards any religion by supporting none of them.

I don't care about the attitudes of your particular faith, I don't want your religion to have a position of favoritism over anyone else, or over the "none of the above" option, period.

[LeftishBrit]

19. Great article

'If atheists are bemused by the latest attacks on secularism, spare a thought for Britain's Christians. Most agree with equality for homosexuals, support the separation of church and state, and share the basic principles of humanism. Many of the comments supposedly made on their behalf must be as alien to them as they are to the rest of us.

The 'war on secularism' is a battle over privilege. On one side, secularists – whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist or other – believe in freedom of (and from) religion; that faith is a personal choice and the state should be neutral in such matters. Opposing them, an elitist minority of Christians believe that one group – themselves – should enjoy privileges that others do not share.'


Agreed.

In the UK, it's not even as simple as 'the religious vs the atheists' on secularism. Until recently, religious intrusion into politics in the UK was not for the most part based much on the content of religion, but was mainly a matter of the struggle for power between Protestants and Catholics, which was linked to much of our history since the 16th century, and was particularly ugly with regard to Ireland. This had partially died down, but in the last few years - possibly mainly since the Internet made international commuications easier - I think there has been more communication between the British and American Right. (E.g. recently a Torygraph journalist called David Cameron a 'RINO' - WTF!) This, IMO, has contributed to an increased tendency for some people to attack secularism and support the preservation of British 'Christian traditions' , because they see such traditions as supporting right-wing politics. Indeed, just as you don't have to be Jewish to be a Jewish mother, in Britain you don't actually have to be a Christian to be a Christian-Rightie! Some are atheists/agnostics (e.g. Norman Tebbit) or members of religious minorities (e.g. Melanie Phillips is Jewish and Sayeeda Warsi is Muslim). To them, preserving Christian privilege is basically one part of preserving general social and economic privilege against uppitty types who want greater equality.

But some of the local anti-secularists really are religious fundies. For example, if you want to feel sick, look up 'Christian Concern for Our Nation', founded by Andrea Minichiello Williams, who thinks that the world is 4000 years old; and which now has links with the Alliance Defence Fund. I think that some of the resurgence of the British anti-secularist minority stems from recent battles within the Anglican Church, where some right-wing clergy here and abroad have rebelled against the liberal church leadership. They are particularly preoccupied with being anti-gay, though the ordination of women also features in their complaints, and I think some of them are trying to have a more general baleful political influence.

[cbayer]

21. Couldn't agree more and stress that this is a two way street.

One of the main reasons I participate in the group is the hope that believers and non-believers can find common ground in fighting the common enemy, the worst of which is the conservative, christian right.

[cleanhippie]

28. I think everyone can agree. Are there any instances when non-believers have not

joined with believers in support of that here in DU?

I cannot think of any, can you?

[Angry Dragon]

24. ........

I notice once again you post and then refuse to debate or discuss
what you post

[cleanhippie]

26. To fling shit against the wall and stir the pot?

[Thats my opinion]

38. Ah, come on AD.

No one had seriously objected to my original post. Why should I be lured into arguments that have nothing to do with the original post, but are put here to incite acrimony? When one response is that unlike the brilliance otherwise displayed, some of us don't have two brain cells to rub together, what does that have to do with what I have said and why should I respond?.

[Angry Dragon]

39. Thats my opinion

If you go to post #24 you will see who I was responding to.
It was not you, it was the original poster.

[cleanhippie]

40. He can't help it. Persecution complex and all...

[Angry Dragon]

41. Oh, I do not worry about Thats my opinion

it is the ones that are asked a question and get all snarky

[skepticscott]

44. And if you go to post #31

you will see who I was responding to, and why. Here's a hint...it wasn't you.

And please stop posting blatant falsehoods about what I said. I never said that anyone here doesn't have two brain cells to rub together, and you damn well know it. If you have to resort to those kinds of tactics to keep up your facade of victimhood, that's really pathetic.

[Thats my opinion]

53. So I have copied and now paste exactly what you said.

"Of course, it's questionable whether people of this ilk here really even deceive themselves with their evasions...they certainly don't fool anyone with two brain cells to rub together."

So those of this ilk don't even have two brain cells to rub together! If that
is not a direct attack on persons here, I've never seen one.

[skepticscott]

55. Did they teach reading comprehension in bible school?

I said they they DON'T fool anybody with two brain cells to rub together, and I said that even THEY probably AREN'T fooled by their own evasions. In other words, to translate from English into your language, even THEY are not including among those lacking sufficient brain matter. I pointed to NO person or groups of people that they DO fool, nor do I think there is such a group. If you say that there is, then you're the one with the problem, not me.

Apparently you've never seen a direct attack on persons here, but you sure do love to invent them. Playing victim is about the only rhetorical tool you have, it seems.

So now you have three choices:

1. Offer up a red-faced apology for blatantly misrepresenting my earlier post.
2. Continue to argue that I didn't say what I said, and just re-explained.
3. Slink away, as you usually do when you're pinned on a point.

My money's on #3.

[Thats my opinion]

63. I'll just let your diredt quote stand as it is.

If I'm a fool, it is getting caught again in the trap of responding to you by taking seriously what you post. It gets nobody anywhere. It does not advance any cause. It is just an excuse for mean spiritedness to erupt. I need to take another vow not to be suckered in any more. What an idiot I am.

[darkstar3]

65. So you have chosen his option #3.

If only skepticscott had had the opportunity to really bet...

[skepticscott]

66. I bet myself

a bowl of Ben and Jerry's Karamel Sutra, and I'm enjoying the fruits of my victory over myself right now

[skepticscott]

67. I'll let your

Last edited Mon Feb 20, 2012, 07:14 AM - Edit history (1)

evaluation of yourself stand as well. But thanks for helping me win my bet. Nice to know some things never change in here.

And yes...do let my quote speak for itself. I'm guessing everyone else will have no trouble with misinterpretation.