The vilification of modern religion drove the left from the church, and/or the church from the left.

[nomb]

A bit of both really. The schism is not yet complete.


The 60's left was VERY spiritual. It's now uncool to be a Christian in the left and almost a bar to entry.

In the Ill 6th several different winners of the Democratic primary were Christian and actually found serious antagonism from Democratic Party stalwarts solely for their spiritual beliefs.


Read this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/us/21nuns.html


If this woman didn't believe in god you would know her name and spread word of her truly good deeds everywhere. A liberal hero except for that one nagging DIS-qualifier.




(Fair Notice: I am not religious, but I do respect the good things that good people do and I accept that their beliefs can be different than mine.

Christianity as a philosophy I have no quarrel with in regards to it's message of love. But I do think very poorly of a small minority of other religious philosophies. )

[Lance_Boyle]

1. REASON is driving people away from religion

and it just so happens that REASON is an important thing to many on the left side of the political spectrum.

Supernatural mysticism can't die off fast enough.

[hifiguy]

10. Agreed 100% nt

[nomb]

14. Then it is the FIRST mission of the left to Destroy, Eliminate and quell religion?

[Lance_Boyle]

16. Not just the Left - it should be a priority for all rational thinkers. n/t

[Common Sense Party]

41. How should we go about "destroying" religion?

[Lance_Boyle]

70. Just like we destroyed Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny...

by growing up.

[socialshockwave]

73. Aaah! I missed this comment.

You'd do Stalin and your Soviet idols proud.

[Lance_Boyle]

120. have fun crusading

Rational reality will still be here if you decide to come back.

[patrice]

182. I'm still wondering how they destroy something that isn't real in the first place.

If they don't mean that they have just destroyed an incorrect label for something that actually is there, i.e. whatever put the toys under the tree or the candy eggs in the easter basket, what have they destroyed? If they do mean that they have destroyed the labels and not what the labels REFER to, what have they destroyed?

Maybe some of us should read more Chomsky.

[msanthrope]

77. We have a mission? Why wasn't I told? n/t

[onager]

152. Shhh! And whatever you do...

DON'T MENTION THE MIND-CONTROL RAYS!!!

(EAC = Evil Atheist Conspiracy, a long-running joke...or at least, that's what we want THEM to believe...)

[Lucian]

55. + infinity

"I'd rather know than believe." - Carl Sagan

[hifiguy]

104. +1 One of my all time favorite quotes. nt

[patrice]

118. Is there only one way to understanding? How does one account for idiot savants?

Reason can also be the means by which what calls itself religion is refined into something with a little less detritus.

Yes, that begins with the hypothesis that religious authority IS in error about that which they claim authority over, but that's THEIR fault, having little to do with the actual nature of truth, to which there CAN be a variety of relationships, some of which are of or pertaining to reason and others of which are not of that order.

[Lance_Boyle]

119. I don't debate philsophy with delusionals

you are ill-equipped.

[patrice]

123. Speaking of the ir-rational, how do you arrive at that conclusion on next to no empirical evidence?

[Jim__]

140. Touche'! - n/t

[patrice]

141. Thanks! I should have asked if he knows even the most general stuff about Quantum Physics. But it

doesn't appear that I'm going to get any kind of response to the challenge that was initiated by the other.

Can someone say, "dishes it out, but can't take it" . . . ?

[patrice]

124. Pray, do tell, explain the phenomena known as "idiot savants" to us please.

[RaleighNCDUer]

145. Whatever it is, it is a matter of mind and brain workings - purely

physical phenomena - not faith or religion.

[patrice]

169. I didn't say it was religious. And yes it can be rationally described. But I was also suggesting

that from the savant's perspective it is non-rational knowing. It does not fit the disciplined processes and procedures of rational empiricism, or any other epistemology that I know of. From the savant's perspective it just is.

[RaleighNCDUer]

181. Come on - that's asking a fish to define water.

The savant cannot explain how he learns to play a fugue on one listening - but a neurologist can come up with some pretty good ideas about it. Logical, rational ideas. All based on known theories of neurochemistry.

Do you think a migrating bird knows that it is following magnetic lines from the poles? It doesn't need to, to learn to do it. But WE can know and understand that, even though we cannot do it ourselves.

That does not make it magcic.

[patrice]

184. My point is that there are types of knowing that are not the same as that used in the statement:

Because rational empiricism does not present support for the existence of what others call God, we do not know God and, are, therefore atheists.

Just saying that there are different kinds of knowing does not presume that you know those other kinds of knowing and, therefore, MIGHT know God that way. I don't know if you do have alternative knowing or not. You might. You might not. You might not even refer to them as knowing. I used the idiot savants as an example of something that is known apparently non-rationally, so that I can say "Because rational empiricism does not present support for the existence of what others call God, we do not know God and, are, therefore atheists" refers to ONLY a certain kind of knowing known as rational empiricism.

[darkstar3]

188. Define those other kinds of knowing, please.

And be precise.

[RaleighNCDUer]

189. Are you going to pull out the pins and dancing angels next?

You postulate something that has no proof, and to bolster that you come up with something ELSE that has no proof.

I, OTOH, show how a savant can learn through known, if poorly understood, bio-chemical processes. They wire him up to an EEG, and show the synapses firing. One day, and sooner than later, we will understand that process and you'll be able to take a pill and do quadratic equations in your head.

But there will never be a 'god' pill. Of course, if there was, it would itself disprove the existence of god.

It is not about KNOWING. It is about LEARNING.

No magic necessary.

[LeftishBrit]

230. I actually know several scientists working in that area.

There is no universally accepted explanation yet, but the likely candidates are:

(1) 'Savant' talents are the result of obsessive practice, and reflect the fact that many savants are autistic, and that obsessional interests are common in that group. Others might develop such talents too, but usually have too many other interests to spare the time for such extensive practice in these areas.

Or

(2) In the typically-functioning brain, the frontal lobes and/or the left hemisphere language areas permit language and logical thinking, but may inhibit brain areas associated wtih certain creative abilities. Some people experience damage to or disconnection of the frontal lobes/ left hemisphere language areas, which leads to intellectual impairments, but releases otherwise dormant creative talents.

Or

(3) Many brain functions are more independent than often recognized. Although, for example, verbal and mathematical abilities correlate with each other, it is quite possible to be much better at either than at the other. The 'idiot savant' may be the most extreme example of a common phenomenon. The person with an IQ in the 60s and poor language skills who nevertheless draws extremely well is much more noticeable than the person with an IQ of 100 who performs adequately but not remarkably at school subjects but nevertheless draws extremely well, or even the one with an IQ of 120 who performs very well but not outstandingly at most things, but is a truly creative artist. But they may all represent the same phenomenon: intelligence is not a single entity, but consists of many functions which correlate with each other on average but can also dissociate.

I tend to favour explanation (3), but there is some evidence for explanation (2). I don't think that the evidence for explanation (2) is convincing at this stage, but further research could change my mind.

People interested in the subject might want to read Beate Hermelin's 'Bright Splinters of the Mind' or Francesca Happe and Uta Frith (eds.) 'Autism and Talent'.

(Apologies for TOTALLY hijacking the thread, but this is a subject that interests me!)

[patrice]

125. Is hostility possibly evidence of bias? nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

146. Is hostility possilby evidence of impatience with idiocy? nt

[patrice]

170. What empirical evidence do you have that I am an idiot? You're not even certain what I think as you

have demonstrated untrue assumptions about that. And you have not asked, i.e. the first step toward rational knowing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

183. I know what you are attempting, in vain, to do - to prove with

a lot of fancy language that you are not (and by extension, no religios person is not) an idiot.

You defeat yourself with every turn.

Read what I wrote. Did I call you an idiot? Or merely suggest that you are spouting idiocy - something which smart people do all the time.

What untrue assumptions have I made? More like your assumption I called you an idiot?

As for asking, who would be a more biased, and logically untruthful, witness on your behalf than yourself? Any notions I have about your attitudes and religious proclivities I draw from YOUR words. What other evidence do I need?

[patrice]

187. What rationalist asks a question like "What other evidence do I need?" wow.

Thanks! It's been fun, despite your manners.

I'm tired now and as usual this sort of thing always turns into a wild goose chase, because language is not the same thing as that, rational or non-rational, to which language ONLY, somewhat artificially, refers.

I need to go do some laundry now.

See you around.

:hi:

[patrice]

126. Have you made a god out of yourself?

[RaleighNCDUer]

147. Meaningless question.

[patrice]

172. If one assumes omnipotence, whether one calls it religion or reason, is it not still omnipotence?

If it's possible to define a God, isn't there a reasonable expectation that a primary trait would be omnipotence?

[RaleighNCDUer]

186. What atheist could EVER claim a belief in omnipotence?

It is not possible to define a god, as no such creature exists. Therefore, no supernatural traits attributed to sucb a creature could exist.

BTW, through virtually all recorded history, except for the descendents of a small, nomadic Mesopotamian tribe, NOBODY believed any god was ominscient, omnipotent or eternal. Gods were limited, they were born, lived, and died (usually violently) in EVERY culture on earth until about 500BCE - even the ancient Hebrews believed in multiple gods, and gods who had limits on their power and capabilities. The god that was invented by the Babylonian exiles was the first to display those traits.

If this is such a natural expectation, why did it take 10,000 years of post-caveman history to come up with it?

[patrice]

127. On the matter of reason, would you care to discuss the nature of proof? nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

148. Proof: the repeatable effect of experimentation.

If it is stated without experimentation, it is not proof.

If the results are not duplicatable, it is not proof.

Prove that god, or pink unicorns, if you will, exists.

[patrice]

168. I'm not trying to proove that god exists. Just saying that what we call proof has nothing to say

about that outside of "there is no evidence to support the existence of what you call God" which, btw, does not address phenomena that do not fit that particular semantic frame. Refuting something on the basis of an invalid experiment, only refutes whatever that invalidity is. It's like saying, "If I have an aunt, she sings opera", then testing for an aunt that sings opera, acquiring negative results and, thus, concluding that I have no aunt. You can achieve reliable results over and over, but you still have not established that I have no aunt.

What we call proof is also limited to the conditions by means of which it is established, anything beyond that is inferential, and, therefore, not necessary. You can do more experimenting under more conditions, but there are practical limits on how far one can go, so experimentation does not produce absolutes such as those engaged in by both sides of this question.

I'm more of an agnostic on the question: If there is something that could be referred to as a God, however one would define that (an oxymoron in itself, don't you think), the nature of knowledge being what it is, and the nature of that God being what it is, there's no conventional way we could know anything about it if it did exist.

[patrice]

137. Are animals delusional, hence we are incapable or learning anything from them?

[RaleighNCDUer]

149. Meaningless question.

The state of animal rationality has nothing to do with our capacity for understanding them, or through them, ourselves.

BTW, how would you know an animal is delusiional or not - can you compare their vision of reality to objective reality? Our science has not yet developed that capacity. If YOU have, patent it and make a billion dollars.

[patrice]

174. If one says knowing cannot be other than rational, animals who demonstrate no rational capacities

do not know anything.

You're right, delusional isn't a valid label, but they are operating on some basis that is not what we call knowledge if we limit that definition to the processes and procedures of rational empiricism. Not an expert there; I do know that there is research demonstrating that some animals engage in some behaviors that do look like learning. My original question was more "on an average" do animals know anything, in terms of how rationalists define knowing, or are they delusional?

[patrice]

138. What is not delusional about not recognizing the limitations of reason?

[RaleighNCDUer]

150. All ratiionalists recognize the limitations of knowledge - and that is

very different from the limitations of reason.

When you understand that, you'll have a clue.

[patrice]

177. I do understand that. I was just using the operational definition of knowing that I found here.

i.e. Because rational empiricism finds no support for the existence of what others refer to as God, we do not know God and are, therefore, what is referred to as atheists.

I'm not going to make this about belief, because belief has nothing to do with rational empiricism, which is the basis of the atheist identity.

[RaleighNCDUer]

144. The truth is, there is no such thing as Truth.

There is only reality, and the way individuals, and organizations, twist reality for their own ends.

[patrice]

175. Therefore, not even that statement is true.

[patrice]

180. i.e. The statement is a meaningless artifact of RELATIVE language used in an ABSOLUTE way. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

190. Wrong. It is true.

It is not, however, the Truth.

[humblebum]

129. The type of REASON that atheists engage in or claim as the

basis for making decisions about the nature of existence is the MOST narrow-minded of them all. And that is the lie that they have been pushing for the last 150 years. Don't get me wrong, it has a purpose - the one for which it was designed. That being for the assessment of physical existence, period. Beyond that it has not the capability to assess anything and yet that is exactly what organized atheism bases their argument upon. Absolutely bogus!

[RaleighNCDUer]

151. Give an atheist PROOF of anything existing outside physical existence

and he'll look at your evidence.

I'm waiting.

[humblebum]

159. The only proof that is on display here is that which stuck in the form of reasoning

that says if I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch something, it doesn't exist, or probably can't exist. If that is the way a person thinks then they are unable to think "outside of the box", which is fine, but by no means the only way to think. Just for the sake of example, if a hundred people witness a "supernatural" occurrence and there are no other records of the event, then such an event has been proven to those hundred people. But, the evidence is only subjective because the only evidence for that occurrence is their story. It cannot be objective because it cannot be proven as such.

However, an atheist would most likely say that it could not have been supernatural because that is utter nonsense. To be more specific, The Scientific Method, as it is generally applied today is based on Logical Positivism. That epistemology absolutely and automatically eliminates any consideration of a metaphysical nature, intuitive, religious, a priori, etc. These characterists are considered non-sensical. The only evidence that is considered is that which is gained through experimentation and observation. And observation can only be carried out by using one or more of the five physical senses that are recognized.

Science and mathematics are the only disciplines that approach 100% objective "proof". Others, by their nature, use degrees of both subjective and objective empirical evidence. And that is the difference I am talking about here. "Proof" in science is not the same as historical proof, nor that of any other discipline.

[RaleighNCDUer]

179. Using big words does not make a belief in the non-existant any more believable.

True enough, there are 5 known senses. If there are any other undefined senses, they will, one day, be measured and defined by science. That is what science does.

As Arthur Clarke said, any advanced enough science will naturally be seen as magic. Over the centuries magic has diminished as science answered the questions once answered by magic. The fact that something is unexplained does not make it supernatural - it merely makes it unexplained.

BTW, what, other than science and mathematics, exists?

Oh. Right. MAGIC.

[humblebum]

192. "what, other than science and mathematics, exists?" Um?

Have you ever heard of history, law, politics, sports, psychology (soft sciences), Philosophy, religion, entertainment, art, music, education, etc. and on and on and on... ? The range of disciplines is seemingly endless and they all require some method of obtaining knowledge. And huge percentage of the knowledge gained is through subjective enquiry.

[laconicsax]

193. LOL!

Politics, sports, religion, entertainment, art, and music are about obtaining knowledge? :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:.

BTW: Psychology, history, law, and education rely on positivism to self-evaluate, determine what is true, and make progress.

[humblebum]

196. FYI, ALL of those disciplines utilize forms of the Scientific Method,

which of course is based on logical positivism. Having said that, logical positivism has and is being discarded by most scholars due to its narrow focus.

[laconicsax]

197. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Having said that, logical positivism has and is being discarded by most scholars due to its narrow focus.

Prove it.

(BTW, How are you coming with http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=296124&mesg_id=296163">that link?

[humblebum]

198. Contemporary status within philosophy:

Most philosophers consider logical positivism to be, as John Passmore expressed it, "dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes." <17> By the late 1970s, its ideas were so generally recognized to be seriously defective that one of its own main proponents, A. J. Ayer, could say in a interview: "I suppose the most important ...was that nearly all of it was false."<17> It retains an important place in the history of Analytic philosophy as the antecedent of philosophies which continue now, such as Constructive empiricism, Positivism and Postpositivism.

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

[darkstar3]

199. Contemporary status of wikipedia: bunk.

[humblebum]

201. OK, Einstein. Here's another quick source. We can

keep this up all night if wish. There are countless others.

http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyschoolssystems/p/positivism.htm

"Logical Positivism had a lot of support for around 20 or 30 years, but its influence began to decline around the middle of the 20th century. At this point in time hardly anyone is likely to identify themselves as a logical positivist, but you can find many people — especially those involved in the sciences — who support at least a few of the basic theses of logical positivism."

http://cco.cambridge.org/extract?id=ccol0521791782_CCOL0521791782A019

http://wn.com/The_Fall_of_Logical_Positivism_Part_4-3

[darkstar3]

203. Very good. Now show how you're not shadowboxing a straw man.

[laconicsax]

204. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

You said scholars, not just the small subset of professional philosophers.

Since I'm humoring your appeal to numbers fallacy, http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer">here's a group of over 2,000 scholars who rely on positivism, and according to http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-the-us-produce-too-m">this article, there are 30,000 new PhD scientists each year and http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/dec2005/sb20051212_623922.htm">this article shows 70,000 new engineers each year.

If you really want to show that most scholars are non-positivist start by showing that they constitute the current majority and are increasing by 100,001 each year.

(BTW: The success of positivism is literally right in front of your face. I guess you could say that positivism is only useful if you want reliable results.)

[humblebum]

205. Never did I say that positivism was not a success, only that it

has fallen out of favor with a majority of today's scholars, simply because it is too restrictive. You are the one who seems to be appealing to numbers, and what does the number of new engineers and new scientists have to do with logical positivism? Do you think something as complicated as quantum mechanics could be theorized using only logical positivism, given the types of enquiries that are required, but are ignored within the parameters of logical positivism.

And show me in any of your references where it says they rely solely on logical positivism. Kinda like that "no philosophy of atheism" thing you had going. And yes that did cut it.

[laconicsax]

209. Too restrictive=doesn't make shit up.

Do you think something as complicated as quantum mechanics could be theorized using only logical positivism, given the types of enquiries that are required, but are ignored within the parameters of logical positivism.

Yes, yes I do. Maybe not within the parameters of your straw man of positivism, but it certainy did. You see, it didn't just get invented as a guess, but gradually an explanation of observed phenomena and was tested by comparing prediction with results.

[humblebum]

210. You don't even have a clue of what you are talking about. nt

[laconicsax]

212. You know, positive self-talk is best when it's positive.

You're way too hard on yourself.

[humblebum]

213. Did you blather something else? nt

[laconicsax]

220. You keep using that word...

I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Silent3]

206. This article you link to defeats one of your most common arguments

You seem to call everyone who objects to your always-elusive "other ways of knowing" a "logical positivist", yet many here, myself included, consider Karl Popper's concept of falsifiability to be a valuable tool of rational argument, one that apparently doesn't fit into a narrow definition of "logical positivism", so we can't be "logical positivists".

Further, not being a logical positivist in no way automatically leads to accepting, or even giving much credence to, supernatural ideas.

[humblebum]

207. Where did I say that everyone who objects to"other ways of knowing" is always a "logical positivist

Popper balked at the idea and there were many other anti-positivists. But logical positivism was at the heart of trying to establish one unified theory of science, and eliminating any element of reasoning that did not lead to being able to be verified. And it had many adherents, among them Hawking, Ayer, Russell. Also that didnot mean that all positivists were not religious believers, but they applied their positivist bents only to physical, quantifiable existence and nothing more.

[Silent3]

218. You may not say, "You logical positivist, you!"

But quite often you love to tell us about how "dead" logical positivism is, as if you've just spotted logical positivism and must pounce on it. In the future, shall I simply take comments from you like that as random interjections unrelated to the conversation at hand? As if you'd just suddenly dropped "Paris is the capital of France" into a conversation about the migration of sea turtles?

[humblebum]

221. There is a very good reason for referring to " how 'dead' logical positivism is"

because it illustrates how old ideas sometimes need to be updated as circumstances change. Not every atheist is a logical positivist. I have never said that nor implied that, but logical positivism was the foundation for the modern Scientific Method and several noted atheists have declared themselves positivists or their words and actions have identified them as such. There is nothing wrong with logical positivism and I would rather not refer to it as "dead", because it still has a definite usage, but new types of enquiry have rendered it to be outdated for certain purposes. Popper recognized that problem. And, given the fact that Logical Positivism clearly recognizes only that which can be observed by the senses, pretty much limits what it is able to assess or evaluate.

[laconicsax]

226. I know, it's so confining to be limited to what's real.

:eyes:

[humblebum]

245. Yes, and nothing is really a something. I know how you think. nt

[laconicsax]

246. No, nothing is nothing and something is something else.

Not surprised you still don't understand what is increasingly basic stuff.

[humblebum]

247. Your increasingly basic stuff is all conjecture. Mere hypothesis.

Doesn't even rise to the level of theory. you have changed. you used to say something came from nothing.

[laconicsax]

249. Haven't changed a thing.

You said, "Yes, and nothing is really a something."

That is untrue.

I've repeatedly explained how 'nothing' can give rise to something and even shown you studies that prove it experimentally (one of which won a Nobel). "'Nothing' can give rise to something" is different than "nothing is something." I think it's laughable that, among other things, you are unable to admit that you were wrong about a well-understood and experimentally verified phenomenon. Sorry if it bothers you so much to live in a complex universe.

[humblebum]

250. Logically impossible unless you change the definition of 'nothing'.

"Ex nihilo nihil fit" has never been disproven. The nothingness of what you speak is definitely a something.

[laconicsax]

251. Sorry, wrong.

Unless you're proposing a nothing that's so self-contradictory as to be impossible and meaningless...oh. I get it--just like the supposed nature of your god.

Something impossible: knowing both energy-momentum and positions of a system. If you have nothing, the uncertaintly of the energy-momentum is infinite, so you have a choice: you can either have nothing with uncertain energy-momentum, or something with definite position and no energy-momentum.

The universe is complex and counterintuitive, and we can't change that by wishing it so.

[humblebum]

252. Total supposition. It is necessary to create such a paradigm

to support your bogus hypothesis.

[laconicsax]

253. Prae hoc ergo propter hoc?

You're getting sillier by the minute.

Uncertainty has been known since 1927. The big bang was first proposed in 1931 and wasn't accepted as a correct theory until 1964. Tell me, how can a theory first proposed in 1931 have caused Heisenberg to discover the uncertainty principle four years earlier? :crazy:

[humblebum]

255. Ex nihilo nihil fit was theorized just a while before. You are still dealing

with something.

[laconicsax]

256. Uh huh.

[Silent3]

227. The complaints about logical positivism...

...are pretty much technical philosophical and semantic issues, not "it's not leaving room for the 'other ways of knowing' I need for my religion!". If you care about those technicalities (not that caring about them does much to bolster the case for religion), plain 'ol "positivism" without the "logical" in front of it is different from logical positivism, and apparently not quite so dead, so you should be careful when delving into technicalities not to blur the distinction.

[humblebum]

244. I'm glad you're learning new things. I'm well aware of the difference between

positivism and logical positivism. But I am not sure what your point is.

[Silent3]

254. My point is trying to figure out where your point is...

...when you keep bringing up logical positivism. You seem to think that it somehow counters what atheists often say here on R/T, and that attacking logical positivism somehow bolsters your endless pleas for "other ways of knowing".

As anything wrong with logical positivism doesn't seem to be the responsibility of any of the atheists here in R/T, and since none of the current philosophical objections to logical positivism help support your "other ways of knowing" very much, why keep bringing it up?

Perhaps the problem is giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually have a point to make, when I should simply dismiss your blather about logical positivism as nothing more than a distraction or a smoke screen.

[humblebum]

257. You are sure spending a lot of time spouting off about how wrong I am

but totally fail to explain yourself and whatever it is you are trying to explain.

[Deep13]

215. bingo. No evidence, no basis for complaint. nt

[Silent3]

233. It's that whole narrow-mined proofy thing that's the problem!

There are "other ways of knowing" that have nothing to do with this "proof" stuff!

I will now act like you're a complete idiot for not getting this "obvious" point, and, very conveniently for me, act like it would be a complete waste of time for me to bother explaining any further what I mean about these "other ways of knowing" to such an undeserving, close-minded fool.

I may still respond to you, however, not to explain myself, but to get in a few more rants against atheists and that damned logical positivism.

Harrumph! ;)

[Deep13]

161. +1 'Nuff said. nt

[Sal316]

208. Nice broad brush. (eom)

[dmallind]

2. Baloney - all politicians of every party at every level have to kowtow to religion

There is ONE "openly" nonbelieving national elected official. I use the sardonic quotes because he waited until after 17 successful re-elections, in one of the safest Dem seats in the nation, and until a writer threatened to out him before he became an "open" nonbeliever. We have presidential-level debates that are competitions specifically for candidates to out-Christian each other, and fully 51% of the country would refuse to vote for a well-qualified candidate of their own party if the candidate was a nonbeliever - a member of the least trusted and accepted minority in the country - and you have the gall to suggest there is an ANTIreligious bias in any branch of US politics?

[Beer Snob-50]

5. i think if you look here at du

there is definatly an anti-religion bias from a majority of its members.

[dmallind]

22. Here - on a powerless, ignored fringe site? Compared to the folks who pass laws? Wanna trade? nt

[trotsky]

130. What a shame.

Tell you what, do a tally of the members of Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court Justices. Tell me how many of them have anti-religion bias, and then explain why perceived anti-religion bias is such a problem on an anonymous Internet discussion board.

[Beer Snob-50]

136. i am just responding to the opening tread....

i realize that all have their opinions of things and we can all just coexist peacefully with such opinions. i have no problem with those with anti-religion bias.

[RaleighNCDUer]

153. Then why make an issue of it? nt

[darkstar3]

162. Ginned up by many with persecution complexes.

And also, what dmallind said.

[Davis_X_Machina]

3. It's still...

...edgy and transgressive and radical to hate on religion on the left.

Even though Voltaire's dead and buried these two hundred years and more.

[Common Sense Party]

8. It's boring and predictable

If DU is any indication.

"Religion is a myth! It's all fairy tales! I'm so much smarter than you because I can THINK for myself and use REASON! Olive Garden is not real Italian food!"

ad nauseum

[Arugula Latte]

30. The constant invoking of the invisible deity in every aspect of life is boring and predictable.

And if you're saying Olive Garden does serve real food, you definitely have the gullibility to be religious.

[Common Sense Party]

39. Thanks for proving my point.

[Arugula Latte]

43. You're welcome! Any time!

:hi:

[sudopod]

11. Jesus has Voltaire beaten by an order of magnitude. :3 nt

[Arugula Latte]

21. That's because it's easier for the masses to embrace fantasy over reason. nt

[sudopod]

36. sorry I wasn't clear.

I was talking about years in the dirt. 2000 = 200*10. :3

[RaleighNCDUer]

54. But that never stops you from killing him again. nt

[Bragi]

4. I like the trend line

I'm okay with the rift between the left and religion. That's as it should be.

[nomb]

7. What is your opinion of the life the nun in the NYT's article led?

[Bragi]

19. Not sure I understand the question?

Let's say the nun lead an exemplary life. So what? As a secular humanist, I think most people, religious or not, try to live good lives.

[RegieRocker]

6. The point is not to ridicule or alienate religion in the party. Freedom to choose

any religion our none.

[Common Sense Party]

9. Nope. We don't want any of those gun toters or Bible toters in our party.

Just pot tokers.

[RegieRocker]

12. What about a gun totin, God believin, pot smoker?

[Common Sense Party]

31. Heretic!

[MicaelS]

24. Speak for yourself...

The Anti-gun bent of some Democrats, is why the Democratic Party has lost elections. I've met plenty of gun owners who state they would gladly vote Democratic if the Party abandons Gun Control. But as long as gun bans are part of the National Party platform, they state they will never vote Democratic at the National level.

The Assault Weapons Ban cost us control of Congress in '94. That led to Gingrich and his "Contract for America."

Ann Richards refusal to sign the Concealed Carry Bill was a prime reason she lost, and Bush won. Just think of all the problems that could have been prevented if Richards had signed the bill, and strongly endorsed the Second Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Bush would have almost certainly lost, and history would be vastly different.

[Common Sense Party]

34. Amen to all that.

I find it ridiculously self-defeating that some on the left feel compelled to drive people of faith and RKBA people out of our side. I'm not sure why they don't like the 1st or 2nd Amendments.

[darkstar3]

164. The people you disparage are the last defenders of the first amendment.

We fight against blasphemy laws and blue laws, we fight back against government recognition of individual religions. If it weren't for people who wanted to keep religion out of government, if it weren't for people trying to drive the overly faithful away from power, we'd all be forced to pray to the same god by now.

[Common Sense Party]

194. In your overactive imagination, I'm sure that's true.

[darkstar3]

195. And you know anything about my imagination how, exactly?

Couldn't find any content to object to, so you decided to attack the messenger, eh?

[RegieRocker]

38. Your insight is refreshing to hear.

[RaleighNCDUer]

62. IOW, Bush's support of gun proliferation is what put the right wing in power.

Do you have ANY clue as to why that might give the left a jaundiced view of gun proliferation?

[MicaelS]

67. No, the Left's continued refusal to support the RKBA

Put the right wing in power. And Reagan and Nixon pre-date Bush II. The Right Wing started it's ascendancy with Nixon.

[darkstar3]

163. A party cannot be all things to all people.

I'd rather stand for something and lose than win and be told what to stand for.

[patrice]

69. I don't have anything against either one of those groups as long as they aren't fascist.

Re the gun-toters, I just need them to recognize how their assumptions about social and economic justice are fulfilled by their own attitudes and behaviors toward the socially and economically oppressed.

[JackDragna]

101. I'm all for freedom of religion..

..but as soon as people put their religion in the public sphere, saying "because I think or do this as relates to my religion, then society should do X," your religion becomes a legitimate topic of discussion. Part of the right to something, like religion, is the right for other to question your values. That's why the left, among other things, has often ended up at loggerheads with organized versions of religion: organized religion tends to value adherence and conformity.

[snooper2]

Dude, if somebody is going to tell me there are sky fairies that know if you

were wacking off to Adriana Lima..

I'm going to fucking ridicule and laugh. This whole "respect my ignorant beliefs" has to stop.


If you walk around thinking that a magic ferret is how your car gets from point A to B when you put it in drive, I'm going to laugh at that as well. They are on the same level....

[patrice]

13. Odd that OP is about religious hostilities, when this article makes a much more important pointabout

"health" "care" administration, especially within the current environment directed toward Medicare reform. Regarding Sister Mary Jean's retirement from her professional field:

The leadership shift has stirred angst in many Catholic hospitals about whether the values imparted by the nuns, concerning the treatment of both patients and employees, can withstand bottom-line forces without their day-to-day vigilance. Although their influence is often described as intangible, the nuns kept their hospitals focused on serving the needy and brought a spiritual reassurance that healing would prevail over profit, authorities on Catholic health care say.

This story shines a light on an important question about the regime of faith-based initiatives on the horizon. Administrators are expensive. Administrating is a vitally important function, especially in an environment that widely employs "Risk Management" consultants. The particular kind of administrator, in a particular environment, can make all of the difference in the world to those in need of care ESPECIALLY because that administrator can either stand up to or bow to the Risk Managers. Of laity or religious administrators, which might be more likely to do which?

In this reform environment, the difference between lay and religious personal can be not only large variations in compensation & benefits, but also degree of professional independence, facilitated or subjected to other factors in an administrator's life that CAN make them more DEPENDENT upon going-along-to-get-along in order to secure their own, and in the case of laity their family's, futures.

All of which affects, and will increasingly affect, health care costs. In a reform environment, the question of administrator professional independence could be enabled by those structures around administrators that allow them to do what is best for those in their care, rather than just protecting their careers. This, not bigotry against religious, is the significance of Sister Mary Jean's retirement.

[nomb]

20. The church is leaving health care. That means good liberal people are gone too. Replaced by executiv

Replaced by executives.

We are all the poorer for the loss. That is my much greater point.


If you drive good people away from good things because you spit on and aggressively attack their beliefs they are gone.

Who is to replace those who do good in the belief that as god's children they must help the lesser among them?

Please share with me the great motivator for selfless sacrifice that is to truly replace what the believers feel is gods love shared with others?

[closeupready]

28. Please cut the mystical mumbo-jumbo. Lots of people do good w/o any white-bearded white man deity

coming between them and their good works.

[nomb]

32. It is their motivator. What would you have replace it? The gap-year? One lump sum towards goodness?

[Bragi]

45. Common sense can inspire

You know, the humanist idea that we're all in this together, that love and respect are better than hatred and abuse. That kind of thing. You don't need religion and invisible authorities to understand these truths, or to act in accordance with them. Common sense freed from religion will do.

[patrice]

58. Agreed. That's how it turns out for me. It's also concrete & physical, not mumbo-jumbo. I was just

trying to point out that coming to that REAL -ization, though not necessarily dependent upon a religious life, is also not necessarily obviated by a religious life.

The word non-religious can be substituted above too.

I'm also speculating that at least religious forms and processes, ALL denominations, can support the search, but they can also be mistaken for the truth itself.

Which goes to show that it all comes down to the individual desire for truth and, in this case, the courage to take a stand for it in the health care environment which is under HUGE economic pressure.

[dmallind]

49. Or simple humanity perhaps.

At least 3 of the top 5 philanthropists on earth are nonbelievers. So is the organizer of the single most successful fundraising event in history. It's not like religion is a sine qua non for selflessness. If their only possible motivation is trying to please an invisible friend, what does that say about their own intrinsic altruism?

BTW if you accept that religion is not just a valid but also an irreplaceable motivation for good deeds, do you also believe it is a valid and irreplaceable motivation for bad deeds such as the recent beating to death of a child in the name of biblical Christian discipline? If not why not? Either faith has the power to motivate to otherwise unlikely actions or it does not.

[closeupready]

51. Human nature.

You may believe, as many religious people do (particularly those who subscribe to Abrahamic religious codes), that you were born evil. I do not.

I have always been compassionate and helping. Don't want or need some mean, cruel sky god interfering with that, thank you very much.

[patrice]

47. There are plenty of religious people who have absolutely nothing to do with white-bearded old men.

[closeupready]

53. Okay, conceded. I was being hyperbolic.

nt

[patrice]

59. Oh my, how sweetly rational of you; I think I like you! nt

[closeupready]

63. :-) I not above admitting that I'm just plain wrong sometimes.

Which is a LOT, lol. Peace to you, patrice. :hi:

[patrice]

71. Re being wrong > Chomsky (and others tell us) all language is hypothetical.

I say stuff all of the time just to see if I can figure out how to say it, so that I can then take a look at it.

All of it is almost always wrong one way or another, depending upon how things are defined and what perspective one takes in regarding whatever it is.

This is why the great revolutionary educator, Paulo Freire (in his book "Pedagogy of the Oppressed") tells us that ones "true words" are the behaviors that manifest one's principles for mature responsible Freedom (which behaviors he refers to collectively as "praxis").

Deeds are our true words. I love how concrete, physical, and un-mediated that is. I love the relationship between the individual and the world and the future that it manifests.

Peace to you also, closeupready!

[patrice]

42. I personally believe that motivator, of which you speak, is innate. Religion can enhance or extingui

sh it. Non-religious life can enhance it or extinguish it.

Of the two, religious:non-religious, I have no way of saying which is more likely to result in enhancement of that great motivator, for more people, more often, but I could guess that, at least with religious orders' structures and processes for spiritual discipline, the opportunity to enhance the great motivator would be higher than non-religious life that has no such support, and even if it did, that support, like a fox guarding a hen house, is easily turned into some form of a profit/pleasure/self-aggrandized motive. The same CAN be said for religious orders, foxes guarding the hen house, but at least their charters can create an opportunity for more honest and critical self-evaluation. Some do that rather successfully, others don't.

[Arugula Latte]

65. We know that this is our only trip around the sun

so we'd like to make the most of it. We don't need mythology to motivate us to give and help.

[nomb]

66. There's another trip departing tomorrow. Have fun with it. :)

[undeterred]

93. + A Brazillion

[patrice]

97. Agreed, except for "Replaced by executive..." They're going to be replaced by ChurchCo

faith-based initiatives designed to proliferate GUARANTEED jobs on the backs of the poor and suffering, all dressed up in buzzy "Jesus loves you" marketing and with the support of a thriving hospice industry (which you can/will see on Wall Street).

[undeterred]

111. + 1,000,000

[muriel_volestrangler]

128. The article has nothing to do with liberals; and what about contraception and Catholic healthcare?

Sadly, the Catholic church, far from leaving healthcare, is lobbying heavily to allow people to refuse to serve people with contraception. Its campaigns against abortion have also been going on for decades; and it's heavily against any form of assisted dying being allowed.

All in all, the Catholic church is a conservative force in healthcare. I actually thought you might have linked to the wrong article after reading the OP, because it had nothing to do whatever with liberalism. And your claim that we would all know the nun's name, and spread her deeds wide, if she wasn't religious, is laughable. She's been a hospital administrator. How many hospital administrators can you name? Far from her religion keeping her name quiet, it's obvious that the only reason she was written about in a major paper is that she is religious. No other retiring hospital administrator gets a 2 page article in the NYT.

If that article is about anything, it's about the financial world driving out religious orders from healthcare. It's not liberals rejecting religious people - it's corporations. Why on earth are you blaming liberals? In what way is any liberal 'spitting on and aggressively attacking' the people, religious or not, in healthcare?

If you want to know who will do good in a healthcare system apart from nuns, just look at the people who work in any non-profit healthcare system - whether some in the US, or the national systems in any other developed country. That's what liberals stand for in healthcare - universal provision, including contraception and abortion, without corporate profit. Far from a religious order being the only alternative to a for-profit system, it's an oddity - and a far from perfect one, given the way it inserts its illiberal beliefs into national policy.

[RaleighNCDUer]

154. Who is to replace those who do good in the belief that as god's children they must help

the lesser among them?

How about humananists who believe it is their duty as human beings to improve the well being of all people - and who don't believe ANYONE is 'lesser amoung them'.

[LWolf]

15. Someone else said it better:

I like your Christ. I don’t like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.



"The Church" is not a monolith. I THINK you mean the Christian Church, and that is not a single entity, either.

Neither is "the left."

I think more of the left live the values of the recorded Jesus than many of the churches who call themselves "Christian."

Modern religion, as opposed to spirituality, is too often corrupted by hunger for power.

[dgibby]

33. Well said.

Doing the right thing simply because it's the right thing to do makes more sense to me than doing the right thing because one is afraid of incurring the rath of some deity. When I asked a relative why she believed, she said because she was afraid not to. I found that very sad.

[patrice]

64. It is so very sad.

One wonders where a lifetime of fear brings one at the moment of death.

[Desertrose]

60. +1000

Excellent points.


:hi:LWolf :hug:

[patrice]

95. Agreed. and re your last sentence: the same can be said of "the Left". The modern Left,

as opposed to freedom/rights/justice, is too often corrupted by hunger for power. It can, and I believe does, define itself as the same thing as that which it claims to pursue.

[LWolf]

102. I'm not sure who the "modern left" is, to be honest.

I know that the terms "liberal" and "progressive" were corrupted to mean something other than what I understand them to be, so I started calling myself "left."

That doesn't really work accurately, though, because while I'm definitely far left in the U.S., I don't know how "left" I am in a broader, more global sense.

How do you define the modern left, and are you considering the whole planet, or just the U.S.?

[patrice]

108. I don't know either. I have doubts about any kind of Left that does not value dialectic.

That's pretty much the starting point isn't it, as Marx defined it historically & economically?

I think this is one of the biggest problems; the only thing that even remotely presents itself as Leftish has, it appears, defined its raison d' etre as deposing Obama, instead of being grounded within a wider reality or dialectical process. Not, of course, that they couldn't choose such a goal, just more that it appears to be the primary and only goal, even to the detriment of Labor (!!), without seeking somekind of broader understanding of who they are and what they are doing.

I agree with you. I have no idea who the modern Left is, just that there seems to be something that claims to be it. All of those words, Left, Liberal, Progressive, others . . . are used interchangeably and that also can't be the case, right? There are differences in priorities and preferred contexts, it would seem anyway.

[RaleighNCDUer]

155. What makes you think the left does not value dialectic discussion?

And where is this left you speak of?

For someone who claims to have no idea who the modern left is, you spend a lot of time dissing it.

[edhopper]

17. Yeah

So many Democratic atheist have been elected.


Oh wait.......

[CleanGreenFuture]

18. Bullshit. The realization that the idea of a sky daddy presiding over

our lives is ludicrous is what drove the left out of church.

Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, Easter Bunny...and...

[socialshockwave]

68. Must you mock belief?

I could laugh at you for believing in nothing without any evidence to back up your belief in nothing.

But I respect your right to believe in nothing. Can't you respect the religious left's right to believe in their deity?

[patrice]

74. For some of the religious Left, it's not a deity, but something more like the emergent

properties of various systems, a.k.a. a gestalt, and as such, the higher one goes in speculative system hierarchies, the more speculative the "deity"/emergent properties become, until you reach a point that about the only thing one can say with any degree of probable validity is something like, "a gestalt is possible".

[socialshockwave]

75. I believe everyone has the right to believe in what they want.

However, the anti-religious - more so, anti-Christian - attacks that are on DU make me feel uncomfortable to exercise my right to believe in God and Lord Jesus Christ.

[patrice]

90. Agreed about DU. It's pretty hypocritical in a lot of ways. I'm a Liberal Leftie and I love

the LIVING and omnipresent Lord Jesus, so I stand with you.

Though I understand them, perhaps I'm mistaken about anti-religious, and some atheist, DU. I assume their motive, what drives them is freedom. However, some frequently demonstrate that they are enslaved to their own perceptions. At minimum there appears to be a tendency to engage in language-fascism.

It seems to me that if one has a passion for truth, it is necessary to step away from one's self at least just a little bit and truly understand other, even opposed, perspectives BEFORE you reject them. And if one can't do that, then, perhaps their problem isn't that "guy with a white beard and his magical mystery tour son" but rather that the truth is they do believe in a God and that god is indeed themselves.

[CleanGreenFuture]

94. Why is stating the truth an "attack" from your perspective. If you are going to

subject others to your beliefs, then you'd best be prepared to accept the consequences when someone doesn't believe the same things you do.

[Common Sense Party]

133. You're not stating "a truth." You're stating your opinion.

Worthless as it may be.

[RaleighNCDUer]

156. And there is exactly the problem -

you speak of 'my right to believe in God and Lord Jesus Christ', without acknowledging that it is YOUR god and lord, not mine. Not your neighbor's. Not even your parents'.

Your concept of god comes ENTIRELY from within you - if that was not the case, if there was some outside extant realithy to it, EVERYBODY would agree on what 'it' is.

The fact is, it is nothing more than your unsupportable opinion and no more worthy of 'respect' from me than a belief in little people who dance at midnight and leave fairy rings of toadstools behind as evidence (which actually is MORE evidence than you can offer). And would YOU respect the opinion on world affairs of someone who made such a claim?

[Silent3]

219. Being made to feel uncomfortable != loss of a right

Provided you have a driver's license, you have a right to drive whatever kind of car you can afford to buy.

If you were to exercise that right by buying a giant Humvee, one that gets about 3 MPG, you might feel uncomfortable when people tell you what an awful environmental choice that would be.

No matter how much discomfort you were to feel, however, your right to drive the Humvee would remain entirely intact.

[LeftishBrit]

241. Nobody questions your right to believe in God and Jesus.

On a religion and theology board, there will be debates about Christianity vs atheism vs possibly other religions. Some people are aggressive in debate; it can happen over any topic. In my personal experience, I have come across far more frequent aggressive debate about methods of education, especially in reading instruction, than about religion!

And some American atheists will inevitably be frustrated by the dominance of the Christian Right in many areas of politics, and by the attitude of some that atheists are not equal citizens. I gather that you are Canadian; I'm British; neither of us has therefore experienced the political and social dominance of the Christian Right that some Americans have. I have observed some very nasty religious-right activities recently in my backyard, and have therefore become aware that one has to watch out for it even in places where it usually doesn't happen (another case in point: supposedly secualar Australia, where Christian Right-winger Tony Abbott came within *just one parliamentary seat* of becoming Prime Minister). But I was well on the wrong side of forty before I experienced it that close up, and on the whole religion and the Right are not that strongly associated in my country. I don't feel that I can blame people for becoming somewhat bitter and resentful about religion in places where they experience it much of the time. To use a perhaps ironic expression for an atheist, 'there but for the grace of God go I'.

[CleanGreenFuture]

84. Where's the mocking? Is truth now considered mocking?

Laugh at me all you want. But where is the mocking language?

Not a word I wrote was meant to mock anyone. I was just stating fact.

[socialshockwave]

86. Well,

When you use terms like "sky daddy" or any of the other terms I've read on these boards.

It's basically saying "I don't believe in what you do and you should believe in what I do or you're stupid."

[CleanGreenFuture]

91. But that's not what I said and it's not what I meant.

I'm not talking about the "sky daddy" part. I did say that. Perhaps not the most sensitive moniker for God, but the end truth is the same.

You can believe what you want to but don't expect me to coddle you for it.

[closeupready]

92. Religion should be personal and private, not part of the political process.

And when religions seek to intervene in secular affairs, they are opening up that belief system to criticism, since generally they 'reason' that their faith system supports their political agendas.

So you need to take it up with religious authorities, since I don't think anyone here has ever started in on religions without being instigated by some larger story covered in the media.

[dmallind]

100. and I could laugh at you for the inability to distinguish absence of belief from belief in absence.

[patrice]

110. Important point, that. nt

[Union Scribe]

107. Watching a thread about religion here is like visiting a shark tank.

Except sharks attack out of instinct instead of the need to feel superior to people who believe in deities. And they aren't angry and indignant while they feed. Well, I guess it's not at all alike.

[Occulus]

117. I'll stop mocking beliefs when holy books stop calling me an abomination.

Fair?

[edhopper]

171. You have the right to believe anything you want.

You do not have the right for those beliefs not to be mocked.

Your first sentence is preposterous. One does not have to offer proof for the nonexistence of something.
Those who make the claim for a deity must offer the proof.

[darkstar3]

178. In order:

Why not, goddammit? ;)

I don't "believe in nothing." I simply don't believe. If you can't understand the difference between those positions, either because of ignorance or refusal, then that's your problem and not ours.

Respect is earned, and ridiculous ideas earn ridicule.

And I will add, not in response to your post but in respnose to you in general, that if you don't like the programming you can always change the channel.

[CleanGreenFuture]

79. .

[Union Scribe]

103. Lol, boy the "rational" sure are bitter, sharp-toothed ranters...

[SoCalDem]

23. Not necessarily true.

Many "spiritual" people do NOT like the "cloaked-in-religion" candidacies of far too many people these days.

There is a big difference between living a decent/kind/generous life, and planting your ass on a pew every sunday.

People who go around proclaiming their faith, often seem to be trying waaaaay too hard to convince people (and maybe themselves).

Believing in (or not) God (whose god, which god?) is not a precursor for good governance.

When one becomes a PUBLIC employee, charged with representing ALL of the people, it seems to be a good idea to keep personal beliefs OUT of the picture completely.The little coded phrases, loaded language, secret handshakes & prayed promises have no place in public governance of a diverse society..

[Arugula Latte]

25. Religion vilified anyone who thinks women should be in control of their bodies

or gays should be allowed to have *gasp* equal rights or that church should be kept out of state.

And who is "vilifying" religion publicly except a few people like Chris Hitchens? Certainly nobody in politics will touch that third rail. All politicians have to keep clapping their hands and insisting they believe in fairies, even those on the left, or what is left of the left.

[nomb]

40. I would rather see us attack those ideas, while supporting the good. Highlight the Pfleger's ......

[patrice]

26. Perhaps the bigotry you perceive is not religious, but rather ECONOMIC. Nuns do more for less.

This makes them a threat to ChurchCo which is working hard as we speak to get our political system to produce GUARANTEED jobs that replicate overhead over and over and over again on the backs of the poor and suffering.

[closeupready]

27. Good freaking riddance.

Unrecced.

[Quantess]

29. What a steaming pantload!

Unrec.

[blogslut]

35. I don't think your theory is correct

Those who profess belief in some religion make up the majority in this nation - roughly 2/3-3/4 of the US population.

As for the nuns, perhaps their dwindling numbers have more to do with the outmoded concepts their church has toward their gender. I would imagine there are still numerous women (even left-leaning ones) who are willing to dedicate their lives to faith and good works but they resent that the only way they are allowed to do so is by marrying god when they would much rather become priests.

[Arugula Latte]

46. Ooh, can't have women becoming priests!

Dontcha know that the Catholic Church is built on a foundation of misogyny...

[patrice]

99. And there ARE tensions between the Vatican and female religious orders.

The National Catholic Reporter has been documenting their somewhat tense exchanges for a few years now.

[Bluenorthwest]

37. So the community that claims the President, the VP and most

of Congress AND preaches against basic rights for others is not getting a fair shake? They are oppressed? Good grief, it does not end.

[nomb]

44. My point is to criticize the absolutism of those opposed to religion, the throwing the baby out with

The throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

And not just because it will win elections, but because there are good people that are being alienated and who do not feel a solidarity with their natural kin.

[LeftishBrit]

106. Who in American politics is 'opposed to religion'?

[sudopod]

112. As opposed to the absolutism of condemning people to hell forever? nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

176. Why, then, do you not try to agree with their secular ideas while

putting up with the lack of religion, just as WE try to agree with YOUR secular ideas in spite of your religious ideas.

The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion, in which is implied freedom FROM religion - plastering religion on your sleeve makes the non-religious naturally suspicious of your motives, no matter how liberal you might claim to be. There is NO relationship between liberalism and religion - they exist in separate spheres. Try to KEEP them in separage spheres.

Or is it YOU who is bigoted, because if an athiest supports an idea it must be tainted, somehow?

[EC]

48. I left over birth control

period, that's it...never did believe anyway, church was just something I did to make my Dad happy.

[socialshockwave]

50. REC.

As a Christian I feel very, very uncomfortable being on generally left-wing boards and the like, even here.

Any mention of believing in God or Jesus Christ is mocked; religion is mocked in almost any thread it's brought up in. The actions of the religious right(who I profoundly disagree with) give certain anti-Christians on this board ammunition to try to launch their own pogroms against anyone who dares say they are religious here.

I wish the admins would at least crack down on the anti-religion talk in general on these boards. It's fine if you want to believe in nothing, but at least give me and others the right to believe in the Word of God and Jesus Christ.

The hardcore atheists here can say all they want about laughing at people like me for believing in a "sky daddy" - but I'd rather believe in something I feel is true then believe there's a cold, dark void after we die.

[cpwm17]

76. In politically correct society "believing in nothing" is frowned upon

So us folks that "believe in nothing" tend to vent on liberal sites such as this, since many people who believe in nothing have value systems that tend to make them liberal.

[socialshockwave]

78. I don't have a problem with atheists or agnostics.

At all. Many of the ones I've met in real life are very nice, friendly people who I can enjoy a spirited but good-intentioned debate with.

Here - some of the posts I see are just hateful. The support of purging of all religion(see above), the mocking of those who believe in something, the mocking of priests, nuns, etc etc - it's appalling.

[cpwm17]

113. Everybody believes in something, and a lot of things.

Claiming that some people believes in nothing is a way to dehumanize them, and a way of discounting some peoples belief system in favor of their own narrow view of reality.

[onager]

157. Damn! A "No True Atheist" post!!!

Don't see too many of those around here...

You want to "enjoy a spirited but good-intentioned debate?"

Oh please. We atheists get that about 20 times a week in here.

Let me translate: What you really want is a "debate" strictly on your own squishy terms - a sort of Atheist Amen Corner.

That is, non-believers who will politely nod at your personal delusions; agree that belief in any sort of superstitious claptrap is just peachy; and go along with your crazy insistence that the loudest, ugliest and most numerous clan of your American religious brethren "aren't real Xians." You know...those real good Xians who would like it if all us non-believers just suddenly got disappeared - preferably along with the gays and those stubborn Jews.

Ain't gonna happen. You'll probably come across an occasional Faitheist in here to make you feel better. But if you post nonsense about atheists - as you just did, repeatedly - you can expect to be called on it.

As for all the whinging about the moderators - I can assure you that they do delete posts they consider "attacks on Xianity." It's happened to me and a lot of other atheists. Come over to the Ath/Ag group sometime and you can read about it.

[darkstar3]

165. +1

[RaleighNCDUer]

80. You know what? As an athiest, I'd rather believe in something I feel is true then believe

there's a cold, dark void after we die.

Unfor4tunately, I cannot. (Of course, the 'nothing' would not be cold nor dark - those are physical perceptions, and have no more validity after death.)

I would really like to believe in the persistence of consciousness, to believe that I will still be me, after.

There is no evidence for it.

I don't mock you. I do, however, mock the beliefs as your myth has no more evidence for validity than those of the Romans or the Egyptians or the Aztecs. You, yourself, are an atheist for every religion in the world, minus 1.

You have the right to believe, if you wish. Too many of your ilk wish to organize society to force the rest of us to believe as well, and I could no more make myself believe than I could make myself change gender. Every time a religionist promotes putting the weight of the government behind religion in ANY way, they are promoting the taking away of my rights.

I never talk about religion in the real world - only on political forums, because religion and politics are inextricably woven together in this country. The fact that you may advocate a kinder, gentler religion makes it no less dangerous to me.

[socialshockwave]

83. I believe in the seperation of church and state.

People should have the right to choose what they wish to believe. Society should be based on secular government, not on a religious one. In my opinion, however, the Word of God has been distorted by His followers - some of these vile, hateful "pastors" who claim to speak for Him - and it's what is turning people against Christianity.

Still, as I said - the anti-Christian rhetoric I read on here is unsettling at times.

[RaleighNCDUer]

52. I would tend to say, rather, that the villification of the left drove the left from the church.

'Liberation Theology' has been condemned, nearly to the point of being heresy, by the lat two popes - and the focus of ALL religion is on a pie-in-the-sky next life, rather than improving the lives of people in THIS life, which the left is wont to promote.

The 'liberal hero' in this article was prohibited to dispense birth control to her patients, to advise them to get abortions even when there was no chance of the fetus' survival and the mother was at risk, and her work (along with that of her sisters) earned her church billions of dollars to use in it's anti-woman and anti-gay activities. Real liberal, there.

(Fair Notice: I don't believe you.)

(edited for a really unforgivable typo)

[nomb]

61. In re:

In regards to this: (Fair Notice: I don't believe you.)

I do have a marked tone of spirituality in my observations. I am always awed by those believers who do good and had close family friends of my mother who were actively involved in liberation theology with one now a prominent civil rights attorney at the Justice department.

I can't believe because I don't find it rational, but those who do, and a few that I know that are simply searching, humble me.

[Arugula Latte]

56. Oh, speaking of vilification:

Here is another religious asshole blaming a natural event on the gays (sometimes it's the gays, sometimes it's the godless, and sometimes both). This crap happens All.The.Time. I'd say the real and prominent problem is with The Religious constantly blaming, mocking and dissing others....Talk about vilification:

"NOM speaker blames East Coast earthquake on gays"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4971931

[WinkyDink]

57. Hello, "The Enlightenment"??

[SidDithers]

72. What's wrong with separating religion and politics completely?...

Politics should be antagonistic to religious belief.

Sid

[patrice]

81. A. The article is about a MEDICAL administrator. A regime of faith-based initiatives is headed our

way, ostensibly for economic reform of "health" "care" in this country. Thus faith-based initiatives are an ECONOMIC issue within a religious milieu. Within that context, religious orders historically functioned in such a way as to provide services at a reduced cost compared to the price tag for lay delivery of the same services, e.g. as I said above "nuns do more for less". But they are going away now and Medicare reform is headed at us without the economic advantage that they delivered.

[darkstar3]

166. Exactly.

[Romulox]

82. Religion hasn't been a rallying point for social justice in my lifetime.

What am I supposed to do? Support religion based on a nostalgia for a time I've never known?

Perhaps the religious institutions, in particular the most visible ones, such as the Catholic church, carry most of the blame for retreating into social conservatism and apologia for the rich and the powerful? :shrug:

[nomb]

89. Google: Roman Catholic Father Michael Pfleger.

[Sentath]

109. I did

He is suspended

[nomb]

142. No, he is not. He was for a brief moment - and he did not back down from the statement

that got him the time out.

[patrice]

114. I am named after a populist preaching RC priest who worked in SE Kansas after WWII.

Father Patrick Quinn was a friend to union organizers and he said so from the pulpit is STRONG terms. He inspired my father who went on later to help start the first Boilermakers' & Pipefitters' union in the state, of which he was a life-long member.

[Romulox]

131. I just did some reading on Father Quinn. Sounds like a great man.

I'm not terribly religious, but men like Quinn remind of the story of John the Baptist: "a voice crying in the wilderness".

I do not claim there are no men and women of the cloth who devote their lives to social justice; however, I cannot accept that the Catholic Church, e.g., when taken as a whole, stands for social justice.

[nomb]

143. And yet, for blue collar workers in the NE, Central Americans, Chinese, Burmese, Africans and so man

and so many more - it is Social Justice in both word and deed.

[lumberjack_jeff]

85. For people who pride ourselves on rationality, we don't do math very well.

90% of americans believe in God. I'm an agnostic, but I understand arithmetic well enough to recognize that we need their votes. (And those of men, and of white people, and gun owners, etc.)

[nomb]

87. "90% of americans believe in God." n/t

[nomb]

88. So the Left wins when we get those guys out of the way first. Hmmmm, let me think about that one....

[RaleighNCDUer]

200. Actually, that's not true.

85% CLAIM to believe in god. At leat 20% of that 85% are lying. Another 20% would happily kill the other 85% if their god told them to (and that applies across the spectrum, with the exeption of Quakers and most UU).

Most people who claim to believe in god actually only believe in religion. Not the same thing. And they don't know the difference.

[darkstar3]

167. A few problems with that.

1. That 90% incorporates a lot of VERY different beliefs about God.
2. You can't cater to all of them.
3. I'm not interested in sacrificing everything I stand for just to garner a voting bloc. I'm not a republican, or a whore.

[JackDragna]

96. When modern religion is consistently reactionary..

..opposing civil rights, justifying the excesses of the upper class and generally being a speed-bump toward social change, is this really a surprise? When our philosophy is about inclusion, tolerance and equality, are we supposed to jump for joy when most of the monotheistic world religions do things like advocate the inferiority of women and the murder of homosexuals?

There are some in the left who don't much tolerate religion, but I think the majority don't mind so long as one is still a compassionate, progressive person.

[LeftishBrit]

98. I disagree. First of all, in America even the Left is still overwhelmingly religious

Almost all non-Christian American politicians are Democrats (mostly Jews; one or two members of smaller religious minorities; only one an open atheist). But most Democrats are Christians. I don't know about the Illinois 6th; but certainly Obama, Biden, the Clintons, almost all Democrats in high positions are religious, and most of these are Christians.

I think that the increasing association between Christianity and the Right - far less in Britain, especially in the higher ranks of the Church of England; but somewhat present even here - is due mainly to the Right courting Christianity and emphasizing a particular type of Christianity, rather than to the left/liberals rejecting Christians.

Reasons for this are:

(1) The ascendancy of the political 'pro-life' movement, which considers abortion far more immoral and anti-life than war or poverty. Some of these are truly fanatical. And I suspect that if abortions did not exist, they would still be going strong, because often anti-abortion for this group is secondary to:

(2)The association of right-wing politics with socially right-wing religious groups that are dedicated to 'preserving traditional values', which for these groups basically means authoritarianism and dominance by traditional top-dogs: males over females most of all; nationalists over immigrants and racial minorities; everybody over the poor. This is associated with a preoccupation with sex, which 40 years ago seemed to emphasize the need for censorship of Naughty Books and Naughty Television, and nowadays seems too often to involve vicious homophobia.

(3) In America specifically, Reagan and pals exploiting (1) and (2), as a way of getting yet more people to vote Republican, sometimes very much against their own economic interests.

(4) The Right rallying certain religious groups against the National Enemy - once the Communists, now the Muslims. In Europe, there are some Islamophobic bigoted atheists - notably Geert Wilders; but it is far commoner to be an Islamophobic bigoted Christian. And even people who are not particularly religious sometimes lament the supposed 'death of Christianity' in Europe for supposedly making us less ready to 'fight for our civilization' against the 'invaders'.

This is not saying that religion in general or Christianity in particular is inherently RW. Far from it. But I think the issue has been far more one of the Right co-opting and exploiting religion, than the Left rejecting it.

[patrice]

105. +1,000,000,000 & All of that has intense significance within the ECONOMIC context of Health Care

reform, as OP's article points out.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

121. By George, I think he's got it!

Once Reagan started courting the previously non-political fundamentalists by pandering to their opposition to abortion, a whole ugly ball was set to rolling.

[Fumesucker]

115. Christianity has to a big extent driven Christ from the church, at least in America..

It's mind boggling to someone who has actually read the Gospels for themselves to hear the interpretation of Christ's teachings promoted by a great many Christians these days. It seems that every single teaching of the church I grew up in has been stood on it's head, blessed are the rich, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a poor man to enter heaven, you should pray in public, indeed you should pray over the radio and the teevee so that as many men as possible see you pray.

The more religious an American you are and the more often you go to church the more likely you are to support government torture of criminal suspects, that really says it all.

Not to say that all Christians are that way but it's clear that a substantial plurality, if not an outright majority, are of that mind and most of the rest just keep their heads down and their mouths shut on these sorts of moral questions.

And you wonder why many on the left have a real antipathy to religion?

:crazy:

[patrice]

122. Agreed. It should be destroyed as an organization for fucking up their mission. Unfortunately,

they're going to be rewarded for their blasphemous idolatry by being handed "Health" "Care" reform in toto, by means of faith-based initiatives, i.e. GUARANTEED jobs programs for ChurchCo on the backs of the poor and suffering. And if you don't think that's true, take a look at what's happening in Brownbackistan.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

211. Jesus said "I come not in peace but with a sword." He said lots of violent and hateful things.

Which Christians attempt to ignore.

They use bad-ass jesus and good-guy jesus as they wish.

[AlecBGreen]

232. "He said lots of violent and hateful things"

Really? Name a few besides the one you mentioned.

[DirkGently]

116. The politics of American Christianity villified itself with ethical people everywhere.

Christians who actually believe in the teachings of Jesus are not to blame, nor are the people pushed away by the pro-war, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-science, dominionist crazy talk of American fundamentalists.

The article makes the point that there are fewer nuns today, and surely nuns have done good works, but I'm not sure it's any kind of unfair cultural shift or unfair "villification," that fewer women would chose to "marry Jesus" in the modern world.

[dmallind]

132. No you don't understand

Any damn fool can see that committing to a spartan, celibate life of obedience amnd subordination is not an obstacle to those who feel the vocation of God, but having snarky things said about them on obscure lefty websites will completely remove any desire to serve the poor and needy.

[DirkGently]

135. Possibly religion is being made to lie on the bed (of nails) it made for itself, eh?

[hifiguy]

134. When any believer in any of the Abrahamic religions

can provide one, JUST ONE, piece of extrinsic evidence, verifiable through the scientific method, that supports their claims, there will be something to talk about. Until then, not so much.

I'd urge the more open-minded believers to read Richard Dawkins, whose clarity of thought and expression will give you more than a little to think about.

[patrice]

139. Their point is that evidence is not necessary. Your point is that evidence is necessary. Therefore,

neither one of the positions should have word number one to say about the other.

Either one that violates that premise, violates the terms of its own identity.

Religion does not exist to an atheist.

Atheism does not exist to the religious.

It's as though someone asked me to describe a type of wave energy for which I have no receptors. Someone can tell me it's there, but I cannot perceive it, so, other than referring to what other people SAY about it, the only other rational thing I can say is, "I do not perceive it." Anything beyond that presumes knowledge of something that one claims does not exist.

[darkstar3]

185. Yet another example of someone who wishes atheists to stop criticizing religion.

God does not exist to an atheist. Religion, on the other hand, most certainly does exist, as it is a man-made power structure.

[darkstar3]

158. Because the left doesn't allow religion to dictate the planks of our platform.

Those interested in unifying their exclusive religion to their political party/action have no place on the left, which is as it should be. Therefore, when their religious beliefs are in line with the right, they flock to the republicans, and when their beliefs don't mesh well with the right, they sit in the middle and grouse at both sides.

In a world of of true equality, and in a nation with a Constitution like ours, religion and politics just don't go together. This does not meant that you cannot be both politically active and religious, but it does mean that religious reasons for your political actions are, bare minimum, inadequate.

[RaleighNCDUer]

202. Well put. nt

[Deep13]

160. Regarding your disclaimer at the end.

"Christianity as a philosophy I have no quarrel with in regards to it's message of love."

Therein we do not agree. First, love is a mammalian instinct. It is not a philosophy. It is not unique to Christianity, nor is Christianity a particularly good example of it. The real doctrine of Christianity is redemption of sin by vicarious suffering. I don't believe in sin and if I did, killing an innocent man to redeem ourselves makes us more guilty, not less guilty. My criticism of Christianity is the very core of its message. The problem with the extremists is not that they have perverted Christianity, but that they believe in it more than moderates do.

As far as accepting believer candidates, that is simply a practical necessity. Admitted skeptics can't win in this country.

[darkstar3]

173. Blasphemy is free speech.

Criticism, even harsh criticism, of religion is free speech as well. We are liberals, and first and foremost I believe we must support, encourage, and when necessary fight for free speech of all kinds. Anyone who has a problem with that is welcome to go elsewhere.

[humblebum]

214. That's great. so when I say "organized atheism is an extremely bigoted movement"-

it's OK. Now I won't feel so bad, just let 'er rip! Cool.

[Deep13]

216. It's legal, but inaccurate.

Pointing out that your imaginary friends are imaginary is not bigotry. It's fact. Deal with it.

[humblebum]

217. Yes, but when such groups openly call for "ridicule" and even "hatred"

to be shown toward religions and their adherents, it rises above mere criticism. It's bigotry, deal with it.

[darkstar3]

222. No groups have done that. Only Christopher Hitchens has said that.

But then again you've already proven that all atheists look the same to you.

[humblebum]

223. Why do you put out such crap? Hitchens said that to a round of applause

and guffaws and he has quite a following, and is a regular guest (maybe a member) of several atheist groups. And Dawkins recently said that religion and religious people should be ridiculed. He said this as part of a panel of atheists being interviewed at the World Atheists Convention in Ireland, a couple months ago.

[darkstar3]

224. Thank you for proving my point.

[humblebum]

225. And mine also. nt

[LeftishBrit]

231. Hitchens says all kinds of things, and is deliberately provocative.

There are such people in all groups.

And people in all kinds of groups get ridiculed. What about all the ridicule for 'toffs' and 'yobs' and 'rednecks' and 'elitist snobs' and 'ivory tower academics' and 'feminazis', etc. etc.? It's much more of a stock-in-trade to ridicule mothers-in-law than religious people. People's eating habits probably attract more ridicule and contempt than their religious views.

Making fun of others isn't the nicest characteristic of the human race, but it is a fairly universal one and far from confined to religion.

[humblebum]

234. Another word for the type of ridicule used by Hitchens and a

large part of organized atheism is "bullying", which is a form of bigotry without any question. No different than if it were done to a racial group. Still bigotry. And any group that needs to engage in such behavior on such a large scale to achieve its ends loses all credibility as a desirable part of a civil society.

"A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing sex, race, ethnicity, religion or spirituality, nationality, inter-regional prejudice, gender and sexual orientation, homelessness, various medical disorders particularly behavioral disorders and addictive disorders. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views."

And organized atheism has a long history of bigoted and violent behavior.

[LeftishBrit]

235. Some atheists are bigots. I've said so already. So are some members of all groups.

As regards whether, in places like America, atheists can really 'bully' the religious - I am reminded of an old American children's rhyme:

Way down south where bananas grow,
A grasshopper trod on an elephant's toe.
The elephant said, with tears in his eyes,
'Pick on somebody your own size!'

[humblebum]

237. I am really not talking about individual atheists. People like Hitchens

and Dawkings are recognized leaders of organized atheism, which is a growing movement as is evidenced by the recent establishment of Atheist Alliance International as an umbrella group for all atheist groups.

Religion should not be free from criticism, but when someone like PZ Myers, nonchalantly does something like desecrating a communion host, you might as well be painting a swastika on a synagogue.

[LeftishBrit]

238. By the same token...

you would have to say that all forms of organized religion are bigoted, bullying and generally wrong,because of statements by some leaders within these churches.

Some people do think so. I don't. I don't equate a movement with all statements of some members. To do so is somewhat bigoted, whether it's about Christians, Muslims, or atheists.

I want atheists to be regarded as equal citizens. I think that Bush I's statement that atheists are not full citizens of the United States is far worse than anything that Hitchens has ever said - because it came from the leader of a country. I want the political 'pro-life' movement to lose its pernicious influence. I want religious right-wingers to quit campaigning against left-wing liberal politicians and causes; and especially to stop suggesting that the welfare state is intrinsically sinful. I want people to stop suggesting that secularism is an evil influence on society! I wasn't bothered at all about religion vs atheism until the political religious right started raising its ugly head, especially in America, but every now and then in the UK too.

I would agree that it is just as bad for a government to enforce atheism as to enforce a religion. The state should simply refrain from associating beliefs or non-beliefs wtih citizenship in any way whatsoever!

And desecrating a communion host is NOTHING like painting a swastika on a synagogue. A swastika is a symbol of the MURDER of six million Jews, not just of disrespect for their religion. At most, desecrating a communion host might be like eating a ham sandwich in front of the congregation in a synagogue - which would be nasty inconsiderate behaviour, but *nothing* like the swastika example.

[humblebum]

240. "like eating a ham sandwich in front of the congregation in a synagogue"

You are obviously not a devout Catholic.

[LeftishBrit]

242. And you are obviously not the descendant of Jewish refugees from Eastern Europe (nt)

[humblebum]

243. Perhaps I should have said Russian Orthodox instead of Catholic.nt

[Deep13]

248. False equivalency.

You lump "toward religions" and "their adherents" together as though they were the same thing. They are not. I would not call for anyone to hate any specific group of people (unless the we are talking about a group defined by evil behavior--Nazis, child molesters etc.) That is different than saying that religion generally or any religion specifically is hateful because of what it teaches.

[LeftishBrit]

229. Yes. You can say that, just like you can say 'government healthcare leads to death panels' or

'black civil rights organizations are bigoted against whites' or 'all Democrats are Communists'.

Freedom of speech includes freedom to say unfair and wrong things, or it means nothing.

That does not, however, mean that the statement is correct.

For one thing, atheism is not *one* movement; it consists of many individuals and movements.

While some atheists are bigoted against members of some or all religions, most aren't. They are just interested in their OWN rights to freedom of speech and thought, and in particular, in keeping government from imposing religious laws on all.

[humblebum]

236. "While some atheists are bigoted against members of some or all religions, most aren't."

Well then I would suggest that instead of coddling such behavior in organized atheism, you begin speaking out against it.

[LeftishBrit]

239. I am not a member of any 'organized atheist' group!

You seem to think that all atheists, or at least all who demand political rights for atheists, are somehow in one big sinister band. Most of us aren't members of any group. Frankly, I've heard far more names of atheist organizations from *you* than from any atheist I've ever met, and I've met plenty of atheists.

I am not even opposed to religion; I AM opposed to all who imply that 'secular liberalism' is a cause of society's evils, or seek to defeat 'godless' political candidates or use religion - or any ideology - to promote right-wing causes. When an individual says bad things about all religious people to me, I do say that they're wrong. It doesn't happen very often, in my experience.

And by the same token, I don't even ask you to 'speak out' against all people who are bigoted against atheists, but how about your just not citing and linking to such sources?

[applegrove]

191. The woman's movement gave women outlets other than church to express themselves, solve problems.

I think that is the main thing that has undone religion. It needs to be vital in people's life and by taking on conservative issues it isolates itself from modern families.

[LeftishBrit]

228. PS - As regards the nun in the OP

I SERIOUSLY don't think that her lack of fame is due to her religion. It is a sad fact of modern life that nurses and hospital administrators don't get the same sort of recognition as TV presenters, sportspeople, and many celebrities who are just famous for being famous! People still remember Florence Nightingale, but her successors are sadly obscure in comparison with many who are far less useful to society.

And at least in the UK, the old-fashioned Matron, whether religious or not, who had started out as a nurse and was dedicated to her hospital, has often been replaced by someone with a Masters in Business Administration but little experience of hospitals. Also sad, IMO.