Why the Charlie Hebdo attack goes far beyond religion and free speech

[cbayer]

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/10/the_real_politics_of_charlie_hebdo_it_wasnt_about_religion_or_free_speech/

SATURDAY, JAN 10, 2015 10:30 AM CST
Why the Charlie Hebdo attack goes far beyond religion and free speech
Debates about Islam and free speech only go so far. This was a political blow aimed at multicultural democracy
ANDREW O'HEHIR


An injured person is transported to an ambulance after a shooting at the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo's office, in Paris, Jan. 7, 2015. (Credit: AP/Thibault Camus)

We can blame religion in general, and we can blame Islam. (We can hem and haw around, Bill Maher-style, and say that we’re not blaming absolutely all Muslims but only some of them, perhaps most. Or we can go full Fox News and blame the whole damn religion.) We can blame free speech carried to irresponsible and obnoxious extremes, and we can blame the pantywaist spinelessness of liberalism. We can blame the cultural arrogance, racism and Islamophobia of French society, and we can turn around and blame its overly lax immigration policies, the residue of colonial guilt. But with the two principal suspects in the Charlie Hebdo attack now dead and the relentless cycle of punditry churning onward to third-level meta-analysis, I think we’re in danger of overlooking the obvious, or to use Joan Didion’s memorable phrase about the journalist’s task, failing to observe the observable.

What happened in Paris this week was a political act. Terrorism is always a political act, or nearly always. Its goals lie in the here-and-now or at least the near future, not in the hereafter. Did that guy we’ve all seen in that terrible videotape, shooting that cop in the head on the sidewalk, look as if he believed there was a bevy of virgins waiting for him in Paradise? I don’t believe this attack was driven by religious faith on any fundamental level, and to define it as an assault on freedom of speech is far too narrow. Its true target was multicultural democracy in general and the specific version, both more fragile and more successful, found in France in particular.

If anything, this attack testifies to the power the French model still holds, even in an era of sustained political crisis, social conflict and economic stagnation. Amid its evident difficulties, France remains a peaceful, prosperous and culturally vibrant nation with a relatively well integrated and increasingly secular Muslim minority. (As has been widely reported, one of the police officers killed on Wednesday was a Muslim.) That model of democracy — or perhaps we should say that possibility — is exactly what came under attack from the Charlie Hebdo gunmen. Their aim was to pry open that model at a tender spot, expose its contradictions and undermine its stability.

Debates about the role of religion in modern society, and the outer limits of free speech, are undeniably seductive. I am liable to get drawn into them at any moment. But when we allow our discussion about a political act, which took place in the familiar context of a Western liberal democracy and whose origins are not especially mysterious, to get sidetracked into grand pronouncements about abstract moral and philosophical categories, we are deliberately clouding the issue and not talking about the things we should be talking about.

more at link

[trotsky]

1. In your other thread promoting this same agenda,

when confronted with the facts, you finally relented and admitted:

At this point, I have to step back and acknowledge that I really don't know enough. Religious extremism clearly played a role here, that seems convincingly clear.

Have you changed your mind back? Or is it just time to start a new thread where you can promote your preferred position, and hope that those with facts don't challenge it again?

[LiberalAndProud]

2. As soon as you all manage to separate the political motives from the religious ones,

would you please send me a memo? I maintain that political/religious ideologies are so closely interwoven as to be indistinguishable. In this case, those who would impose capital punishment in the face of blasphemy are espousing ideas both political and religious simultaneously and seamlessly.

[cbayer]

3. I would agree that you can not separate them, particularly in this instance.

This is a rather long and dense article, but it expresses a POV that resonates with me and also seems close to what you are saying here.

[LiberalAndProud]

5. In your excerpt, the author makes the statement that

we're missing the bigger picture as soon as we begin discussing the influence of religious ideas in conjunction with the notion that free speech should be limited to the outer boundaries of belief systems. I think that is exactly what we should be discussing. When we dismiss the underlying ideologies as the stimulus for very egregious behavior, we miss the lesson entirely. I will grant that the author has a difficult time making his argument, as he admits he could easily fall into exactly the discussion that is at hand.

[cbayer]

6. I'm not sure I read it the same way.

I think he is saying that it is easy to get sidetracked by the issues of religion and free speech and much more difficult to examine the underlying complex political motivations.

He makes the case that this was a deliberate attempt to destabilize the rather fragile balance in french society in order to further marginalize muslims. In this way the man behind the curtain has a bigger pool of potential recruits.

His point that the underlying ideology is political is not dismissing the religious part of it. As you noted, it is impossible to tease them apart.

[LiberalAndProud]

7. Your comment only serves to underline my point.

The underlying motivations are political only to the extent that some extremists would very much like to enshrine their religious tenets in political policy. Again, the argument that religious beliefs are only peripheral to the conflict is specious, to my mind.

[cbayer]

9. Some extremists would very much like to have as much power as they can get.

They have corrupted a religious ideology and adopted it as their political ideology. The feed off muslims being marginalized and disenfranchised. That is the base of their army.

I have never made the argument that religious beliefs are peripheral. Clearly they are not. But saying "because Islam" is specious to my mind. It's attractive, even seductive, but it is far too simplistic.

[trotsky]

11. "They have corrupted a religious ideology"

No they haven't. To them, it's pure. And the moderate/liberal versions are corrupted. Everyone can find texts and teachings to support what they believe.

This constant insistence by you that religion is always pure and good, and that it's "corrupted" when someone believes the bad things in it, doesn't help matters at all.

[LiberalAndProud]

16. "Because Islam" is a simplification that I have not made. Nor will I.

Some Islamists have dangerous and destructive ideas as do some Christians. The fact is that there are those among us who believe that, ultimately, a Holy War to establish God's kingdom is inevitable. That is, quite frankly, horrifying. The Jihadists and Armageddonists are gaining political sway, and that's a terrifying prospect.

While it may make us more comfortable with our own ideologies to discount the impact of the religious forces at work, I think we do so at our own peril.

[cbayer]

18. Some people have dangerous and destructive ideas.

Some of them are religious and some of them are not.

I do think that religion can be an extremely dangerous motivator as those that pursue their religious goals believe that they have a righteous cause directed by god. That's a very frightening ideology.

But throughout history, there have been others who also believed their ideology was righteous, even though it had no religious underpinnings at all.

My point is not that religious forces should be discounted or dismissed. However, pinning this primarily on religion may also make us more comfortable with our own ideologies and lead us to disregard all the terrible social and political forces at work. I also think we do that at our own peril.

If Jihadists and Armageddonists are gaining political sway, perhaps it is because the economic and social injustices suffered by huge swaths of humanity are deepening.

[trotsky]

19. Or maybe it's because the Jihadists and Armageddonists offer up their own brands...

of economic and social injustices that some people find very appealing. Subjugation of women, execution of homosexuals, etc.

[LiberalAndProud]

22. Pinning this primarily on something other than religion is whistling past the graveyard.

Even so, economic and social injustices need to be addressed even in the absence of religious thought. I'll stipulate to that.

[cbayer]

24. Pinning it solely on religion is whistling past the graveyard.

I understand that you are not doing that, but it is being done.

[LiberalAndProud]

25. The effort to make this primarily about something other than religion is rampant

in my reading on this board. We'd rather call it bigotry than call it the result of believing really bad ideas.

And you didn't say solely. You said primarily. What was the proximate cause of the recent terrorist action in France, in your opinion?"

[randys1]

26. As an atheist (I run the Nevada chapter on Sat nights at The Bellagio in case you are interested)

I find no value in any religion that outweighs the negative.

I think that most if not all (cant be sure about all, not an expert) religions are or can be or have been and will be again, violent.

I think some religions probably have worse ideas than others, but I would never want to make that the issue as they are all guilty.

Seems to me those on the right (not here at DU) want to defend in some way the murderers because to do that means they can be consistent in defending their twisted religion, whether it be Christianity, Judaism or whatever.

LIke I said, I am en equal opportunity religion basher .

But let's be honest, most of it is to defend Christianity at the end of the day

[cbayer]

30. Hey randys1! Nice to see you back.

Not all religions are violent. In fact some are decidedly anti-violence. Since you didn't know that, it's not surprising that you would paint them all with the same brush.

What is it that you think all religions are guilty of?

I haven't seen any indication at all that people on the right are defending the murderers. Where have you seen that? I would be most interested in seeing it. I've been seeing exactly the opposite.

Equal opportunity religion basher, but didn't know that some religions are based on non-violence?

But let's be honest, most of what you are doing is just a way to attack christianity at the end of the day.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. Which major religion does not have an associated history of violence?

I can't think of one. Perhaps somebody will come up with one.

[cbayer]

28. I'm seeing opinions all over the place.

It is very similar to a lot of the discussions that were had after 911. I would maintain that our neglecting all the other factors that fed into that attack has cost us dearly.

In fact, we have surely escalated the battle by making this a holy war, killing untold number of innocent people and further marginalizing and alienating muslims throughout the world.

I don't know what the proximate cause was. Based on what I have read, these two were marginalized losers who were nominally religious. They were perfect targets for recruitment and were recruited, indoctrinated and trained by religious extremists. They came to believe that they were doing something in the name of religion.

As I have said, this author's take on why the extremists did this resonates with me. I think the intent was to disrupt and further marginalize the already disenfranchised muslim community in order to produce more likely recruits.

What is your take on the proximate cause?

[LiberalAndProud]

31. I will answer your final question first.

The proximate cause of the terrorist attack was religious zealotry in the face of harsh public criticism.

We can talk about disenfranchisement and poverty and even sociopathy. But at the root, the core belief system justified and motivated the attackers. It's plain, if not simple.

[cbayer]

33. Information shows that they were nominally religious, if religious at all,

prior to being recruited, indoctrinated and trained by al Queada forces in Yemen.

Now, would you consider it possible that what drove them to that camp was something other than religious belief, because I think what information that is available supports that.

So perhaps you are correct about the proximate cause, but how they got there is really important.

[LiberalAndProud]

36. I could argue that new Christians may have been nominally religious

if religious at all before their conversion experience. I'll make a genuine effort to understand how their mindset before "recruitment" informs this discussion, but it has been my experience that late-comers to faith can be very (unreasonably) passionate about it.

[cbayer]

37. I can agree with that, but I think their mindset prior to recruitment is absolutely critical.

If there are populations of people out there who are ripe for recruitment because they are marginalized, impoverished, disenfranchised and angry, that is very, very important, no?

If this episode was intended to create or worsen the conditions that lead to more of those possible recruits, I think we need to pay vey close attention to the mindset that is in place prior to the recruitment.

[LiberalAndProud]

38. Would you be saying that religious recruiters prey on the marginalized,

impoverished and disenfranchised? Or would that be a bailiwick reserved only for certain militant Muslim sects?

[cbayer]

39. I think all kinds of people prey on them.

I think that if a group of anarchists that wanted to blow up banks had gotten to them, they might have blown up a bank.

These people are ripe for being used and it certainly isn't just muslim sects that are doing it.

What led you to think that was my position?

[LiberalAndProud]

40. I pretty much understood that it was not your position.

But I couldn't resist the logical progression. Still, the next time an anarchist organization blows up a bank or shoots up an editorial office, I'll keep your comments in mind.

[cbayer]

41. Or the next time someone shoots up a school full of children?

In fact, anarchists do become violent and aggressive, even in the US, and they may recruit from the same soup.

Right now, the bulk of terrorism appears to have some religious underpinnings, but that is not always the case.

[LiberalAndProud]

42. I'll let your next word be the last in this exchange.

There have been psychopaths who have shot school children. As far as I know it had nothing to do with any anarchist group that I'm aware of. I take your argument to mean that because some violent acts aren't religiously motivated, religious motivations can only be secondary, or of minimal importance as we undertake to process the horrific outcomes.

I'll stipulate to one more thing before I close. Religion is not the sole source of really bad ideas.

[Lordquinton]

82. options all over the place but can't name just one?

At a guess I would say you're going to name buddism, which would just reveal your own ignorance.

[cbayer]

85. Excuse me? Can't name one what?

I said opinions all over the place.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. In you rush to personally attack me, I think you really missed the entire content of my post

Not the first time and it surely won't be the last.

[trotsky]

4. Excellent point.

On one side I see a few right-wing idiots saying that Islam is 100% to blame. On the other, I see liberals who should be smarter than this saying that Islam and religion in general are completely free of any blame.

There appears to be little room for those of us in the middle.

[pinto]

8. I think terrorism can be fueled and couched in many formats or multiples of formats.

Personal, religious, political, cultural, financial, medical, psychiatric, etc. I tend to agree that "pigeonholing" one impetus for a terrorist event may overlook a bigger picture. Yet sometimes the specifics lead to a simpler assessment. There's value in that as well, imo.

Solutions, responses and answers are another matter, though. Those, I feel, require the bigger picture to be effective. Easier said than done, but well worth the effort.

[cbayer]

10. The point has been made that were it not for religion this episode would

not have happened. I strongly disagree with that and find it worrisome that all the other factors involved would be dismissed in favor of the simplest answer.

It this author is correct about the intended result here, we can expect an escalation.

[pinto]

12. Agree that all other factors should not be dismissed out of hand in the interests of simplicity.

I can't imagine the fuel for the attacks like the Paris events, or the sickening attacks in Africa, being simple in any way shape or form.

[truebrit71]

13. Charlie Hebdo made it a point to skewer religions, not economic disadvantage...

...or any of the other causes being used to peel religion away as the primary factor for these crimes...the simple fact is that these attacks would not have occurred if they had run satirical cartoons depicting the sodomy of the Easter Bunny or the Tooth-Fairy getting gang-banged let's say...

It is plainly ridiculous to say otherwise...

[trotsky]

14. And they had been receiving threats for a long time...

specifically from Islamic fundamentalists, and specifically for publishing cartoons of Mohammed.

[cbayer]

15. I am not saying otherwise.

Nor am I peeling religion away as a factor. I do not think anyone can say with certainty what the primary or secondary or tertiary factors were.

I understand that the people who worked for this magazine would most likely not have been the targets if religion had not been a factor. My point is when you take all the other factors into consideration, it is likely that these kinds of events will still occur without the religious factor. That was the case in boston and sandy hook and newtown and many, many other cases.

[truebrit71]

17. Um, armed dudes shouting "God is great" and "The prophet has been avenged"...

...gives one a fairly big clue as to what the primary factor was in this attack...

They "most likely" wouldn't have been targets if religion hadn't been a factor? Seriously, the magazine routinely skewered religious figures, they had received multiple death threats from religious fanatics, they were slaughtered by people yelling religious phrases, but no-one can say "with certainty with the primary or secondary or tertiary factors were"....??

That is simply ridiculous...

[cbayer]

20. It only says that religion played a role. Neither you nor I nor anyone else

can say decisively that it was a primary factor. Those that cling most closely to that want the easy answer. It's hard to look at all the other factors, particularly when we might be responsible for some of them.

My ideas are different than yours. That does not make them ridiculous.

[truebrit71]

21. Then why didn't they attack a bank? Or a government agency?

If the PRIMARY reason wasn't religious, but rather because they felt economically dis-advantaged, or ostracized from society as whole, why did they just happen to attack a magazine that had repeatedly attacked the religion they ALL followed....

To suggest otherwise is to ignore the obvious...they may very well have felt marginalized, economically over-looked or dis-enfranchised, but they had ONE THING IN COMMON....

Can you guess what that was???????????????????????

[cbayer]

23. I am not arguing that religion did not drive them to pick

this particular place.

If you want to see it as the PRIMARY reason, go ahead. I think it is one of many reasons. Had they been recruited by a group of anarchists intent on disrupting the banking industry, they might have attacked a bank.

The fact that these kinds of episodes happen outside of religion and have very similar stories behind them is important. Those episodes have LOTS OF THINGS IN COMMON…


Can you guess what they are????????????????????

[truebrit71]

27. I see it, along with the vast majority of folks I have spoken to about this for what it is....

...an attack on a group of people, by religious extremists, who were acting on their religious beliefs that their religion had been attacked by the people that they targeted....

Whether they were rich, poor, educated, economically disadvantaged, whatever, the PRIMARY cause of this attack was because of religion.

[cbayer]

29. And someone else just told me that they are primarily seeing people

say that religion played a minor role or not a role at all.

So, opinions are all over the place on this. That much is crystal clear.

As I said, if you want to see it as the PRIMARY cause, go for it. It makes no difference at all unless you choose to ignore all the other factors, which is essentially what we did after 9/11.

In doing so, we exacerbated the situation. We made it a holy war.

[truebrit71]

32. And these people are saying that what was the primary cause exactly?

Bad dental hygiene? Too much garlic in the escargot at Fouquet's?

Get real.

They attacked a magazine that had mocked their religious beliefs shouting religious phrases as they murdered the 'blasphemers'....(that's a bit of a give away right there)...

But no, religion played a minor role, or not a role at all....

Simply ridiculous.

[cbayer]

35. Since I'm not the one saying it, I can't really tell you what they

say the primary cause was.

Are you willing to entertain the notion that there was more to this than just religion?

[notadmblnd]

43. someone needs to supply some links, don't you think?

else DU's #1 defender of "all religion does much more good than evil" is just blowing smoke.

[cbayer]

44. Why don't you link to where I have said that religion does much more good than evil?

What would you like me to link to? Don't be afraid to address me directly. I won't bite you.

BTW, I quit smoking 7 months ago and I am very, very proud of myself.

[notadmblnd]

45. you deleted the post you should have provided links for.

wonder why?

[cbayer]

46. Well, you could just ask me.

I deleted the post because I made it personal and decided that I didn't want to go there. That OK with you?

Now, what links would you like me to provide for you?

I'll go get them while you find the ones that support your overly personalized description of me.

Deal?

[notadmblnd]

47. Links to the articles where people are saying that religion was not the terrorists primary motive.

you need to provide evidence that disenfranchisement and poor economic status were bigger factors in the attack than their religious zealotry.

However, if this is your expert opinion, I would like to know your bona-fides. If you are no expert, then what you have to say (which mostly comes across to me as word salad) has no more merit than what anyone else has to say.

[cbayer]

48. If you read this subthread carefully, you will see that I was repeating what another

member had just said to me. Her post is right here in this thread and here is the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=177273

I have not made the claim that disenfranchisement and poor economic status were bigger factors than religious zealotry, only that they were factors. I have not ranked them at all.

You seem to be reading what I am saying with some specific intent that causes you to see things that aren't there.

Word salad? I suggest you look up the definition of that and get back to me. It's so uncool to use clinical terms when you haven't a clue what they really mean.

Now, about that initial characterization of me, have you found any links yet or is that just your faith based belief?

[notadmblnd]

49. Well that is one thing I can agree with, you are the expert on

Last edited Mon Jan 12, 2015, 10:38 PM - Edit history (1)

using terms when you haven't a clue what they mean. As I said, what you write comes across as word salad to me. I'm confident that is the proper term.

[cbayer]

50. What terms exactly have I used that I haven't a clue what they mean.

You can add that to the examples of the other personal mischaracterizations you have made. What's your problem, anyway?

Word salad: "confused or unintelligible mixture of seemingly random words and phrases

I know you just meant it as an insult, but if you read what I write as word salad, I would suggest that the problem is on the comprehension end.

[notadmblnd]

59. Look who's insulting now?

You need to take a good long look in a mirror. You constantly toss out little digs at people, just as you did right there. Then you pretend that you are totally innocent when you provoke people into being rude to you. Despite what you think, you are no more an expert on religion than I or anyone else who posts here.

[cbayer]

60. You came in here guns blasting at me and then you are going

to complain when I push back?

I don't know what your problem is, but every single post of yours in this thread has been some personal mischaracterization of me and you have not provided a shred of evidence to back up anything you are saying.

I'm not totally innocent. I'm human and I don't know what your beef is with me, but I didn't provoke you into being rude with me. You started out being rude.

I do not think I am an expert on religion at all. I have my opinions just like you and anyone else who posts here.

So why don't you just talk to me civilly and let's see if we can get a better understanding of each other.

[notadmblnd]

62. I've said nothing uncivil to you

[cbayer]

65. You most certainly have.

In just about every single post in this subthread, starting with the one that was about me and not even directed to me.

I obviously really push your buttons. If there is any chance of repairing that, I'm game.

[notadmblnd]

66. I said someone needed to provide links.

talk about sensitive.. geesh. Push my buttons, yeah, I dislike bullies.

[cbayer]

69. Of course, I meant this part: "DU's #1 defender of "all religion does much more good than evil" is

is just blowing smoke."

I dislike bullies too.

[notadmblnd]

70. And you took that to be you- then replied to me.

Hmmmmm.

[cbayer]

71. Wait, what! It wasn't about me and this is all a big misunderstanding!

OMG, notadmbind! I swear to you that that made me laugh out loud.

[Goblinmonger]

72. Sometimes it's not all about you.

It seems that you have a hard time believing that at various turns, but, alas, it's true. When people post things on DU, they aren't always posting about you.

[notadmblnd]

74. I didn't say it wasn't about you. I also didn't say it was. I said you took it to be you.

Hmmmmm.

My exact words.

[cbayer]

76. Please. I challenge you to give me a completely honest answer.

Was that statement aimed at me?

Yes or no will do.

[notadmblnd]

61. why here's one right here that wasn't too long ago

and when you didn't like the first source I posted- you called it not credible. I then posted the Webster's dictionary's definition which is quite close to the definition I posted in my first link, you ignored it. You did however make up your own definition for the word "Religionist"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218171094


edited to change link location

[cbayer]

63. You have just linked to a post in which you personally attack another member (not me)

by saying that she is keeping her feelings of "self righteous superiority". Certainly that is not what you meant to link to.

I did not really recall who you were, but thank you for linking to that thread, the thread in which you called me a "christian religious zealot"..

You seem to be very hypersensitive to what I say. It might be best if we severed any relationship.

[notadmblnd]

64. I know, I just edited it. But it is in that thread where you described yourself as a religionist

You called yourself a christian religious zealot by using the word religionist to describe yourself. You own that. That is an example of what I mean by expert at using terms you don't know the meaning to.

We have no relationship to sever and I only replied to you after you called me out. If you can't take it, feel free to put me on ignore.

[cbayer]

68. We are using different definitions for religionist.

I do not mean it in the way you do and I understand that you are using standard dictionary definitions.

I sometimes say I am a religionist in the way a man can be a feminist. That is how I used it. Clearly I do not mean it in the way you have defined it, so let's see if we can find a different word.

BTW, some of the people who frequent the A/A group use that term to describe religious people and those that support religious people. When they use that word, they are most clearly including me in their definition. You may want to take this up with them.

How do you feel about the word fatheist? That's a term Chris Stedman uses and I like it. He's an atheist who supports the good things about religion.

[notadmblnd]

73. We have to go by the definitions that are in the dictionary, not the ones we make up.

I did not define the word. I posted the definition from two different sources. You made your definition up.

total nonsense, but it made me giggle
fatheist
Similar to an atheist, only a fatheist does not believe in fat chicks. Not even thick chicks. This results in him being a poor wingman, but reduces his odds of being crushed to death.
Guy A: Dude, I could totally nail this chick, you've gotta take her friend for me.
Guy B: Man, I'd bite the bullet and do it, but that's not a bullet, that's a fking cannon ball.
Guy A: Please! I'm begging you.
Guy B: Sorry, no can do. I'm a fatheist.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fatheist

-of course here is Chris's definition-

: What does the term “faitheist” mean? Is it a positive label or a derisive one?

A: It's one of several words used by some atheists to describe other atheists who are seen as too accommodating of religion. But to me, being a faitheist means that I prioritize the pursuit of common ground, and that I’m willing to put “faith” in the idea that religious believers and atheists can and should focus on areas of agreement and work in broad coalitions to advance social justice.
http://sojo.net/blogs/2012/11/25/what-exactly-fatheist

I don't believe religious people can work with non religious people to advance social justice without religious people imposing their beliefs on the non religious.

[cbayer]

75. Well, we often have discussions around this place as to what people mean by certain words.

Sometimes there is agreement to use a word in a more colloquial way and that works. Other times there is to agreement and we have to agree not to use the word in that way.

In this case, it is the second.

I absolutely disagree with your last statement, but if you don't think it's possible then I won't expect to see you participate.

In the meantime, groups that have both religious and non-religious people working together to advance social justice will keep on doing what they do to make the world a better place. Maybe someday you will join.

[notadmblnd]

77. No, you will never see me participating in anything that has to do with a church

I'm capable of working to advance social justice without being guilted into it by religious dogma. I give to and help those who are more unfortunate than me because I want to, not because I'm trying to secure my spot in some etheral after life.

[cbayer]

78. Okey dokey.

I'm capable of working to advance social justice without being guilted into it by religious dogma as well, but I have absolutely no problem participating with religious groups that are advancing causes that I share.

Your view of religious people is very rigid. Most are sincerely altruistic, not just trying to buy a ticket. And most are not proselytizing.

Were you raised in a religion? How much exposure have you have to liberal and progressive people of faith?

[notadmblnd]

79. Most are full of themselves and ARE just trying to buy themselves a ticket

and other than Sunday are out there the rest of the week raising hell with the rest of us heathen.

Yes, I was raised in religion. At times we were in church 6 or 7 days a week and always twice on Sundays. So I had a lot of time to observe.

[cbayer]

80. Ah, sounds like you were raised in a rather extreme arm of christianity.

That would account for your views, I am sure.

If your experience has led you to believe what you say there, than I would hope for your sake that you experience some other variations of religion at some point. That way I think you will have a more balanced view.

I was raised in a very progressive, socially and politically active kind of church and most likely had pretty much the opposite experience that you did. I thought all churches were like mine for a long time, then I was exposed to some of the other flavors.

While not a believer, I am very thankful for the kind of exposure I had to religion as a child.

[notadmblnd]

84. No, wasn't really extreme. My step father was using the church

See he had an ex wife that got custody of his twins. He wanted them and figured having a minister standing next to him and vouching for him in court would do the trick.

[cbayer]

86. I think going to 8 services a week is kind of on the extreme side.

So your step father is the kind of person who uses religion to try and get what he wants?

That might make one a little jaundiced.

How did it work out for him?

[notadmblnd]

87. he never got custody of his twins

I said- sometimes it was 6 or 7 days a week. Always twice on Sunday. When you do spend that much time on religion, it lends itself time for a lot of thinking. Thinking generates questions, questions beg an answer. Much of the time the answers to the questions did not make sense. Only a fool accepts something that makes no sense. Wouldn't you agree?

[cbayer]

88. If something makes no sense to you, then it would be foolish to accept it.

But I think it might also be foolish to extrapolate from that that it makes no sense for anyone.

Everyone follows their own path. When it comes to religion, there are as many paths as their are people, imo.

While there is plenty to find fault with, there is also plenty to applaud - that is what makes sense for me.

[notadmblnd]

89. Well some people are not as curious as I tend to be

They may be satisfied with the answers they get. Others may never ask the questions to begin with- content in their ignorance.

There are different religious paths, however, whatever religion one chooses to follow, that religion is whose path they must follow. Else they're not following that religion. In other words, I can choose the Catholic religion to follow, but if I don't adhere to the tenets/path of that religion, then I am not a Catholic.

You are free to applaud what you like and accept whatever it is that you feel will get you through the day.

BTW what are those things about religion that you do applaud. And please, be specific.

Is it things like singing in the choir? Maybe it's more like adopting a needy family at Christmas?

[cbayer]

90. I really don't agree with this at all.

Most catholics do not embrace all of the tenets of the catholic church. Only a fundamentalist would then say they are not catholic. No one has the right to tell another person what they are or are not when it comes to religion. Everyone has the right to use their own definitions and to adopt their own identity.

Some people are more curious than others, that is the truth. It can be equally lazy or equally challenging to embrace religion or reject it.

There are many things that religions do that I endorse. I find that my goals and priorities are often in line with those of some religious groups. There are groups, organizations and individuals that work for human civil rights, including full GLBT equality. There are others that fight for social justice and have as their priorities caring for the neediest among us. Still others fight for women's reproductive choice and provide reproductive services for women all over the world. There are organizations that are fighting against FGM, human trafficking and those that take care of women with AIDs in African who have been forced out of their communities.

Was that specific enough for you.

There are also many things that I reject and will actively fight against.

Is there anything about religion that you applaud?

[notadmblnd]

91. No, just as with words. You do not get to make up your own definitions

well technically, I guess you could, but then it would be your church and your religion separate from the others. Yeah, we need more Jim Jones and The Peoples Temple or more Marshall Applewhites and David Korishes.

No, there is nothing in religion that I applaud. I do not need religion to advocate for any of the causes you listed. In fact, until very very recently there were no religious groups that advocated for GLBT equality or women's rights and most still actively advocate against them. There are plenty of secular NGO's that help just as much- if not more than any religion currently in existence does, nor do these NGO's expect a payoff in the form of convert$. And that is the point. Religion does not perform these acts out of simple human generosity. The church expects a payoff.

[cbayer]

92. I was raised in a church that did not demand strict adherence to a specific doctrine.

Are you aware that there are lots of churches and denominations like that.

You must have grown up with a church that did not allow for individuality or encourage questioning, but it is important for you to recognize that they are not all like that.

I don't need religion at all, but I recognize that religious organizations and religious people do good things in the name of religion. If you can see absolutely nothing good in it, then you are very far out of the edges.

Your statements about no religious groups advocated for GLBT equality or women's rights is flat out wrong. You may say with certainty that you have not been aware of them until recently, but they have been there. Religious groups were on the forefront of the civil rights and anti-war movements in the US in my lifetime. I know. I was there. And there was no expected payoff.

I also support non-religious NGO's when they are pursuing causes that I share.

Your views are very dogmatic, notadmblnd. I don't think that is entirely your fault, but it is a very, very narrow view and it is preventing you from seeing the whole picture.

If you are questioning and open-minded as you say, then I hope that you will allow yourself to be exposed to things you have clearly not experienced when it comes to religious people. They might even step up to the plate for you one day.

[notadmblnd]

93. Boy you got it all figured out, don't ya?

I guess, just as you get to pick and choose what to accept in regards to religion, you get to pick and choose what you think it is that you know about my views. It is you, that possesses the rigidity of a closed mind.

Apparently you do need religion, you not only need it. You embrace it and defend it whole hearted-ly. You think religion does more good than harm. I think it does more harm than good. I have experienced no deep seated trauma, NOR DO I HAVE A VERY NARROW VIEW, I see religion for what it is. And it's just another racket that receives payoffs if it is successful. If you find good in that, good on you. Like I said, tell yourself what ever it is that you need to- if it gets you through your day.

[cbayer]

94. Nah, I've been working on figuring it out for my whole life

and I am still working on it. Have taken some pretty wrong turns, but that just opened some more doors.

I do think I get to pick and choose what to accept in regards to religion. I think everyone gets to do that. I can't embrace it fully and I can't choose to believe what I just don't believe.

But I definitely defend religion when it is doing the right thing.

A fundamentalist POV can come from either direction. Inability to be flexible or acknowledge that something can be both good and bad at the same time is rigid and can be blinding, but I know for certain that people's perspectives can change over time. Life never stops throwing you curve balls.

I hope that your life is peaceful and that you are surrounded by people who love you. I may be a thorn in your side but I am not your enemy.

I like your user name. BTW, I have two blond daughters and neither one is dumb.

[trotsky]

81. Be warned...

a popular meme with cbayer and some others in here is that vocal atheists just had a bad experience with religion and they have "issues" that they need to work out. Just so you know.

[notadmblnd]

83. yeah, that's what she is getting to now

but no, there were no traumatizing experiences unless you want to count the time we stayed at the preachers house for the day and accidentally walked in on his well endowed elderly wife changing for evening service. But honestly, I think she was more traumatized more than my sister or me.

I just didn't like the hypocrisy I saw.

[rug]

95. Well, then, now it's your turn to provide links. One will do.

[Warren Stupidity]

52. Oh be very careful - you may be voted off the island

for not being deferential enough. Once you get on the shit list it is a very bad situation, if you know what I mean. You could be consigned to the List of Bad Atheists, and that is a horrible thing. It will be a STAIN on your permanent record. And when I say "permanent" I mean "eternal".

[trotsky]

54. Bah, I'm quite miffed.

Being on cbayer's shit list isn't even an exclusive club anymore. Hasn't been for a long time.

[notadmblnd]

67. hey, if going to heaven requires me to spend my "eternal days" with some of these self described

Christians, I'll gladly spend my time swimming in the lake of fire.

[on point]

53. Perhaps at strategic level, generals are political, but use religion to sucker tactical soldiers

[trotsky]

55. So all the generals are atheists? They don't actually believe anything about their own religion? nt

[on point]

57. Didn't say that. They may be cynical and or sociopaths too

Mostly trying to distinguish between strategic level and tactical level the article puts forward.

Nothing is ever all or nothing

[trotsky]

58. Good.

Because some people believe that.

[cbayer]

56. That certainly happens and has happened throughout history.