My problem with "Religion" is this:

[Tyler Durden]

Special treatment.

I do not believe that "Separation of Church and State" exempts a church from property taxes, or a religious organization from the taxes any other company would pay.

I resent that you cannot compel a priest to violate the confessional. I don't give two shits for the "spiritual confessor" bit: it's a DODGE. If it's legit, then it's unnecessary, and if it's used to avoid prosecution or punishment, then it's bogus and a dodge.

I feel that any belief in a "god" does not entitle you to ANY societal consideration that I can't claim because I DON'T. I would call that a violation of equal protection under the law.

In the privacy of your home or the "church" you may believe whatever you want; in PUBLIC you're just another citizen. PERIOD.

That's MY creed.

[patrice]

1. Agreed on points 1,3 & 4 and add, please . . .

Why does being religious necessitate evangelism? Why can't you just believe what you believe, and order your life in every detail, perfectly according to those beliefs and leave other folks alone? Wouldn't that do more for your belief system than all of this showy outward directed behvior? Why do religious people NEED to show off? Can't they believe without that?

[MaraJade]

44. Many believe they are called upon to evangelize. . .

believers in the gospels believe it is a direct command from Christ Jesus.

And it is generally harmless and the person evangelizing probably means well.

If you don't want the message, the correct response is to simply politely say NO and move away.

No need for shouting or acting out. Just say NO.

[shadowknows69]

55. gee that would work

if they took no for an answer. as opposed to...let's say, trying to legislate your religion at every opportunity.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

60. What if I feel the need to taunt and ridicule

And my need is as strong as theirs to "evangelize"?

And what if it offends the memory of all the dead people I love to hear their bullshit talk about the afterlife? I can't defend my people?

[Tyler Durden]

62. I LOVE that.

I had a friend in college in 1971. An atheist, but not rabid about it, until the umpteen thousandth time he got stopped in the street by the Jesus Crew to be "evangelized." One day he snapped, and started his group on campus: he called it "The Cult of the Dead Jew" and started his own evangelizing next to anyone on the street demanding their RIGHT to "witness for Jesus."

Pretty God Damned offensive; also pretty God Damned funny watching little coeds turn purple and choke when he started his screed.


Needless to say, I DO NOT ENDORSE THIS SORT OF ACTION, but I also reserve the right to NOT HAVE TO TELL SOMEONE TO BUZZ OFF WHEN THEY TRY TO CRAM ONE OF THEIR "TRACTS" INTO MY HAND, OR DEMAND TAX FREE STATUS TO PRINT THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[thinkingwoman]

2. wow

point one, I've always agreed with.

point two, I've never even thought of that way.

point three blew my mind.

point four I really agree with.

Actually, I agree with all of what you said, but in all my thoughts about religion and life in america I've never considered your second and third points.

I think you should find a way to get this out in the public venue. Do you blog?

[Tyler Durden]

6. not a blogger...yet.

been a little busy. Give me a month.

[FreepFryer]

3. "Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose."

-- Friedrich Neitzsche

[jdj]

10. If the true Tao is lost then morality takes its place.

http://terebess.hu/english/tao/ramsay.html

[libertypirate]

46. But can morality actually lead society in any direction?

Wouldn't that mean we would have to agree about how to define morality?

Oh we would never agree!

[FreepFryer]

47. No, it means that those who claim moral superiority have the most means..

...to manipulate others. People are morally gullible.

[libertypirate]

68. People are morally gullible.

But it all stems from moral coruption.

[FreepFryer]

70. One can be well-intentioned and gullible and not corrupt.

It's the corrupt ones that can take advantage of morality to manipulate and lead the gullible masses... that's the point Neitzsche was making.

[Catch22Dem]

4. I agree on all points (n/t)

[Cleita]

5. I don't disagree with you much however except about the priest in

the confessional. Would you say that mental health therapists, should be forced to violate their doctor/patient confidentiality as well? I mean the confessional thing could be circumvented by group absolution. If enough priests were pressured to violate the confidentiality, they could stop hearing individual confesssion and instead have people come into church, meditate on their sins without mentioning them, and then give everyone absolution and the Sacrament of Penance. I think this is too much state trampling on the rights of religion. Yes, they do have rights, too.

[Tyler Durden]

8. I don't believe in ANY special rights for religion.

OK, I declare that my wife is a High Priestess of Astarte.

I just offed my boss, and I tell her all about it, including where I stashed the knife.

So prosecute me.

Or, my wife REALLY is a psych specialty nurse. Same scenario. She can't finger me.

I see no difference.

By the way, I feel the same way about the Spouse can't testify against the other spouse: that's equal bullshit.

[jdj]

11. also there are exceptions to privilege for couselors

as well as lawyers and basically anyone bound by privilege.

[Tyler Durden]

21. Privilege that protects evil is foul.

Period.

[Cleita]

30. Yes, but who is going to decide what is evil?

You are sounding like our Prezidunce. Saddam...evil, axis of evil, etc. etc..

[Tyler Durden]

32. Substitute "against the common good" for "evil"....

Although I DO believe what is against the common good is evil.

[adwon]

7. Hmm

Point one: the law has historically made a distinction between organizations dedicated to profit and those dedicated to charity. That is the cause of the exemption (which can be lost, just ask the Scientologists).

Point two: it's a confidential relationship, at least. It may rise to the level of fiduciary relationship, which means that the necessities of trust and confidentiality in the relationship have reason to be protected. The law looks favorably on private resolution of problems and disputes, so if protecting the priest-parishoner relationship is deemed helpful in that regard, it's protected. Further, it's my understanding that priests have a duty, by law, to report specific crimes that are confessed. They also have a moral duty to urge the confessor to admit those crimes publicly.

Point three: I'm not sure what this means without specifics. Is this a continuation of point one or does it stand on its own?

Point four: you're correct. Excellent statement of a truism, but to what point?

[Tyler Durden]

15. OK.

Point one: The law used to "historically" allow torture and punishment like Drawing and Quartering. As Churchill as First Sea Lord said when confronted by an admiral claiming he was destroying the traditions of the Royal Navy: "The naval traditions I am most familiar with are Rum, Buggery, and the Lash." Tell me that the Church, bent on expansion and building projects is non-profit. SURE.

Point two: Confidential relationship? Pooh. A confidence that hides a crime is conspiritorial collusion. I guess if Ken Lay gave me financial advice, then I can't testify against him? Poppycock.

Point three: Can I have a club in a school after hours devoted to Voodoo? How about a class in tattoo art? How about a moment of silence in the morning devoted to the Democratic Party? I want to have a "Athiest's Cookie Club." Equally silly and not appropriate in a public setting: a school, during or after hours.

Point four: A truism can define an ethos. That's my point.

[Catholic Sensation]

20. regarding point two

I'm assuming you agree with the government in destroying the attorney client priviledge with regards to terror suspects too, beause in some cases what the terror suspect tells his attorney could be a confidence that hides a crime.

[Tyler Durden]

23. Sorry, but yes.

Although Confidentiality can be maintained: Testimony in Camera still is utilized.

Also, penalties for the ABUSE of Confidentiality can be enacted.

Confidence that hides criminal activity in my opinion is conspiracy.

[adwon]

24. ?

Point one: pointless. When I say the law, I am referring to American law. Specifically, I am referring to post-1800 American common and statutory law (the date after which most English common law ceased to be controlling). Why have churches been considered charitable organizations? As an example, the vast majority of 20th century Democratic programs were religiously inspired. The first abolitionists were the Quakers.

Point two: You jump to an unjustifiable conclusion. The vast majority, overwhelming to the point of ridiculous, of confessions deal with conduct that is legal but not moral. To jeopardize those people with a fishing expedition into the confessional relationship would be irresponsible. Priests are required, by law, to reveal their knowledge of specific crimes that are confessed. If they do not, they go to jail. I fail to understand why you have a problem with that situation.

Point three: public schools shouldn't support any expression of religion or non-religion. Thanks for the specifics, by the way.

Point four: Understood.

This is not a black and white issue. When the claim that America is a Christian nation, it's not completely wrong. The majority of Americans are Christian, at least nominally. The real problem is when people misidentify the state with the nation. The nation is the people. The state is not. American is a majority Christian nation with a secular state. Most Americans, the overwhelming majority, have little or no problem with this idea. Law and morality may intersect at times, but the only time they should is when it deals with harm to others. There should always be a distinction between morally reprehensible, yet legal, conduct and illegal, yet morally neutral, conduct. Examples: adultery and speeding. Adultery shouldn't be illegal, but should be recognized as wrong. Speeding is illegal, but is 5 over the limit really immoral?

[Warpy]

9. Agreed in principle

but mainstream churches do enough community outreach that they wouldn't be able to afford were they taxed that I'd hate to see the church property itself taxed, as much as I'd love to see fundy showbizzy churches get taxed. That sort of thing has to be done one at a time, as they cross the line into being political organizations instead of religious ones.

However, any commercial property a church owns "for future expansion" should be taxed to the hilt until such time as it is bulldozed and ground broken for said expansion.

Some relationships are confidential. Medical personnel and lawyers both have confidentiality considerations. Priests have been forced to testify when a serious crime (murder) has been committed, and priests themselves often will make this sort of an exception, although they will try to get the perpetrator to turn himself in first under pain of withheld absolution until it is done.

I, too, am thoroughly sick of religious types who use their religion as a club to batter the rest of us with, and act as though we nonreligious people are somehow lesser citizens and human beings. Being a believer doesn't mean shit. Acting on that belief and fighting the good fight to make the world a better place means much more, and unbelievers are shoulder to shoulder with believers in that regard.

[beam me up scottie]

12. Excellent.

Might I add one of my favorite quotes:
"One of the greatest tragedies in human history was the hijacking of morality by religion." - Sir Arthur C. Clarke

[GOPFighter]

13. May I add another?

A person's beliefs become subject to examination and criticism once that person attempts to impose their unprovable, unsupported belief on the rest of society.

I get so sick of fundamentalists (especially) who insist I abide by their God's demands, then accuses anyone who questions it of being an immoral, Godless pervert.

[beam me up scottie]

33. But I enjoy being an immoral, godless pervert.

Is that wrong?

:evilgrin:

[mondo joe]

14. My problem: Your religious values are your PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Like your sex habits. I don't need to hear about it.

[Tyler Durden]

17. I'm an atheist.

I don't HAVE any religious beliefs.

The closest I come is a sort of neo-shinto/budhist meditation. And only because it's quiet and I like the "Tea Ceremony."

[mondo joe]

19. Well I didn't mean YOU.

I mean the constant announcements by some.

[beam me up scottie]

27. *snort*

easy there big joe!
:hide:

[Tyler Durden]

29. No offense. and....

LOVE your sig.

[Rowdyboy]

16. Problem? I agree with all your points and I'm Episcopalian....

Do you really think all Christians are such narrowminded assholes? Be a little more open to people who share your value structure but differ on their reasons why.

[Tyler Durden]

18. No, I don't.

I know MANY people who are "religious" who have NEVER even attempted to even say "grace" at one of my barbeques.

Believe what you want, but as Kurt Vonnegut said "Don't throw any snakes in MY religion and I won't throw any in yours."

[Rowdyboy]

22. I would NEVER dare suggest saying a prayer before a meal when

I am a guest at someones home. That would be incredibly rude; that is the choice of the host, certainly not me or any other guest. Actually, the only time we've ever had prayers at meals in my home was once or twice for my mom's benefit before she died. It made her feel better and my partner had no objections.

I love Vonnegut and I'm pretty much libertarian in my social views. Your quote is perfectly descriptive. Wish everyone here could have the same attitude.

[necso]

25. Ok,

on some philosophical level I agree with this (a lot of of it anyway -- I haven't considered all of the implications).

But so what?

How things should be is largely irrelevant (even where it can be reasonably argued that such beliefs are larger than individual opinion). What really matters is how things are, where they are headed, and what can be done to nudge them this way or that.

And if allowing an essentially arbitrary set of "religions" tax exemptions and recognizing the "sanctity" of the confessional is the price to pay to keep the fundie agenda from being implemented, then I am willing to go for it (and even more -- within limits).

All this inalienable rights stuff is basically bullshit anyway -- when did the average human being ever have anything (besides strictly internal stuff, of value only when he is alive -- and the eventual, at least, right to die) that couldn't be taken away from him?

"Rights" only exist where they can be (and are) enforced. Outside of this, "rights" are only so much posturing -- albeit often attractive and humanistic posturing. (Of course, if one believes in God, then "rights" can be God-given and absolute -- if largely unevidenced in reality.) And without the cooperation of some believers, then non-believers may come to have effectively zero "rights".

[mcscajun]

26. "If it's legit, then it's unnecessary...."

I can't shake the feeling that this is totally equivalent to:

"Well, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide, so nothing to worry about." This is of course, the argument for taking away some of our fundamental rights.

And no, I am most definitely NOT Religious. I still have no problem with the 'sanctity of the confessional'. And you wouldn't have to designate your wife to any priestess position; you and she already have a privileged relationship and she cannot be compelled to testify against you. Of course, if she Wants to, that's up to her. Again, I have no problem with that, either.

Mostly, I'm on your side, but I think you've taken things over a line even I wouldn't cross.

[Tyler Durden]

31. As a Socialist leaning toward Communism....

I believe that "Sanctity of the confessional" and "Professional confidentiality" are both similar to Nationalistic Patriotism: refuge for scoundrels.

[mcscajun]

34. And where do you stand on the right to privacy, or the Fifth Amendment

right against self-incrimination?

Are they refuge for scoundrels also?

As regards the other, I was pretty sure of your leanings before this, anywho.

[Tyler Durden]

36. Actually, that's comparing apples and baseballs...

They aren't even both FRUIT.

Confidentiality in a first party regarding a crime by a second party is by definition conspiracy. I said nothing about "rats" "ratting out" themselves.

I think that covers both privacy and The Fifth. But the Fifth IS a refuge for scoundrels.

[mcscajun]

59. Well I'm hanging onto the Fifth, thank you

very much.

And I'm not a scoundrel.

You can have your revolution without me. Which is no surprise to me, and probably not to you, either.

I wasn't comparing anything; merely trying to find out how far your views went in general.

[Tyler Durden]

66. Feel free.

If you take refuge in it because some asshole tries to impune your loyalty/belief/etc, then you're doing fine.
If you take refuge in the Fifth Amendment in response to a "DID YOU MURDER/STEAL/ETC then you're hiding your wrongdoing in response to a LEGITIMATE question, so you're a scoundrel.

Hey, I'll trust almost anyone until they fuck me. It's one of my flaws.

[Ariana Celeste]

28. I absolutely agree...

on every point. If you start up a blog someday I'd love to see a piece written on this.

Especially point #3.

[applegrove]

35. I do not agree with all your points and I am an atheist/agnostic.

They could not afford to be open or own their own churches if they had to pay tax. Think! The churches in the poorest communities are the most important ones...whatever the religion. Who is going to pay those taxes? Corporations?

[Tyler Durden]

37. That's ok.

No one has to agree with me. It's my ethos after all, but I do suggest it is superior to special treatment for "religion."

[applegrove]

38. Shouldn't religion get treated like religion? Think of small congregation

in the South. A church with 13 regular churchgoing members. Who pays to upkeep the building or for the insurance?

[Tyler Durden]

40. OK, then my "Club" gets a free "Clubhouse."

You see, in my cosmology, equal really means EQUAL.

Equality is an absolute. If I can't do it under the law of society, then neither can YOU.

Understand me: I see no value in supporting a "religion" with taxes, directly OR indirectly. And as to the value it imparts to society, well...I have one word: BUSH.

[MaraJade]

45. If your club is a non-profit club devoted entirely to the charitable

betterment of the community at large (not just it's membership and not just you) then sure! I think that your club should be exempt from taxes in that case.

But if its a closed club, private and only in operation for the benefit of its membership, then no--it shouldn't have tax exempt status.

[FreepFryer]

50. "devoted entirely to the betterment of the community at large".. except if

you live your life differently or believe differently.

If you can honestly claim that the goal of organized religion is entirely to better the community, then explain the enormous wealth of the Vatican.

Religions can and do perform charities, but they are businesses. Make no mistake.

[Tyler Durden]

58. The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, St. Clair Michigan.

In a preparation for Confirmation class, my middle son (SEE? I DO accept if you want to try "religion" on for size, even in my immediate family. How's THAT for "openmindedness??") came home with a worksheet that asked questions like "Is it OK to not rent or sell your house to a Homosexual or a couple living in sin?" The answer was to be "YES. You aren't required as a Christian to support sinners in their sin."

Sounds like betterment of the "community at large" to me (sarcasm off).

Needless to say, and at his request ("That's WRONG, Dad!") I yanked him out immediately.

[applegrove]

73. A church is a community. Did you put your clear objections to this hate

down on paper? Cause I bet you someone really close to god (perhaps a little old lady) did. Communities have fights sometimes. And then they break apart and loose power. Up to you to see hate and act on it.

Me - I would never set foot in a church that preached hate of people like that. But they are following obscure lines in the bible. Up to you if you want to stay in that community and fight for their soulds to point out that slavery was a 'customary norm' at the time and the Church has outlawed that.

[applegrove]

72. Exactly. The ones that help others are called NGOs and they have

membership and tax exemptions. So there!

[applegrove]

71. You cannot possibly believe that organized religion is the same thing

as a club! Are you one of those trolls? Is this a dupe? Nobody is talking about taking away tax rights from the religious institutions. They do good work ministering to souls and walking the walk. You either unintentionally or intentionally try and try and paint the devout & the faithful with the same brush as the publicity & power seeking hypocites who use Terry Sciavo. That is not what 95% of religion is about.

Are you sure you are not just a freeper ..trying to plant hateful ideas at the DU (because hateful ideas about going after each other is a Bush WH thing).

Come on - tell the truth. You are a conservative libertarian who got lost and took a turn at the DU... or you are a freeper. Which one?

[TrustingDog]

39. you got good creed.

[ultraist]

41. I disagree with eliminating attorney-client privilege

or therapist-client confidentiality.

If attorney-client privilege were eliminated, our right to a fair trial would go with it.

As for therapists, they are required to report certain info but they must have some level of trust and confidentiality in order to effectively work with their patient.

Innocent people are charged and if these privileges were eliminated, their personal and private info would be disclosed.

[saltpoint]

42. Agree on many of your points, and you state them well, IMO.

But I would caution at the example of a man or woman whose confession to a priest is heart-felt and I feel it requires secrecy, so long as it is not a threat upon the life or well-being of another person. Someone telling a priest that he's about to shoot somebody down the street should, I agree, compel action.

But secrets of their own volition are sacred and absent harm to others I feel should remain the private domain of priest and confessor.

[MaraJade]

43. Sheesh! This post fairly ROILS with hatred of religion, religious people

and anything else to do with the church.

I wonder what horrible things happened in your past to make you like this. . .

Oftentimes, I have found that people who have such radical thoughts have suffered from some form of abuse, generally from people who profess to have some type of religious belief. But typical of suchlike ones, the "tar brush" is brought out to paint
all people of belief with the same crimes.

So very like the "Any True Scotsman" fallacy; the belief that anyone with a spark of logic in them must relegate religion to the trashheaps of history. After all, it's been religion that's been the problem of mankind for generations, isn't that so?

And yet, the irreligious systems of recent times have also been
failures.

Just even more proof that all generalizations are lies.

I disagree in part with your first item. If the objective of ANY organization is the betterment of the community or community life without any view of profit, then that organization is entitled to
exemption from taxes. I don't care if the organization supports sports teams, feeds the hungry, houses the homeless or has a spiritual objective. Now, more than ever, we need to ENCOURAGE those
who support others, not vilify them. Without a tax exempt status, many people wouldn't give to charities. With the current anti-human
regime in Washington, we need people and organizations who support people.

As for the violation of the confessional, I agree that if a CRIMINAL activity is involved, no matter how minor, anyone in a counselor relationship must and should disclose. This goes not only for priests, but for WIVES and HUSBANDS, EMPLOYERS, ATTORNEYS, FAMILY MEMBERS and even (and especially!) PARENTS. I've always hated it when some PARENTS know of the malfeasance of the children and refuse to disclose. In fact, I believe that PARENTS are far more guilty of failure to disclose than priests. And we all know about cases where entire FAMILIES are keeping secrets that they shouldn't. I say make laws to force EVERYONE to disclose, regardless. If a MOTHER knows of a crime or potential crime committed by their child, MAKE THEM DISCLOSE. Throw them in jail if they don't. For anyone for fail to disclose is a dodge--I don't care who that person is.

Item three I agree with. Only I'd add that my belief in a God does not make me any LESS entitled to any societal consideration than an
atheist. That includes RESPECT for my beliefs. Atheists DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to label my beliefs as hoky, false or illogical. We can disagree, but nothing makes me worse or better than anyone else.
Only different. Different but fully entitled to every human right, including the respect and tolerance of fellow humans.

In PUBLIC and in PRIVATE, I am entitled to believe just whatever I want, just as you are. ONCE AGAIN, the issue is respect.

We need to learn to RESPECT and TOLERATE our differences, not pick fights over them.

Just as you have a right to no beliefs, I have a right to believe.

And just as you have a right to no beliefs in public, I have a right to believe in public.

Nuff Said.

[FreepFryer]

48. He's saying churches should pay taxes, and I agree. It's the oldest racket

in history.

Religion is one thing... organized religion is something COMPLETELY different. Human systems are faulty, but religious beliefs are supposed to be transcendent truth.

See the dilemma?

[KG]

53. oh, yeah, he hates religion.

prolly hates america, too. :eyes:

i knew somebody would jump in this thread and throw the 'he hate me' bomb.

[Tyler Durden]

61. If you have "A right to believe in public"

Then I have a right to express my opinion RIGHT NEXT TO YOU that you are expousing a dangerously delusional fairy tale....

Except that I wouldn't. I would consider that impolite, as I would consider your public evangelism impolite.

I don't care if you believe in TINKERBELL. It's none of my business, UNLESS you want to set up the tax-free fairy support league.

You really must understand that most non-believers (self included) care less than not at all what you choose to believe. We merely object to supporting it. YOU can support it all you like; that's what the collection plate is FOR. Just don't expect ME to give you a tax break for it.

And as to the "Charitable" aspects of religion, when you divest yourselves of those $1 million plus (the appraised value of one of the SMALLER church properties in St. Clair, Michigan) OR you start paying property taxes on these beauties, I got no problem with you in the least.

Hell, I might even put up with some proselytyzing. DEAL?

By the way, your post is LOADED with your "generalities" aka "lies" (as YOU call them anyway). I was just putting my ethos on the street: you don't have to subscribe to it.

[DaDeacon]

64. Again you make the mistake...

Of believing that by tax churches you're giving to the public. Should all non-profit charities pay taxes? If so then how much in can they get in exemptions ? Hell most church wouldn't pay a dime due to donation exemptions :) and then would get the added plus of direct candidate sponsorship or even lobbying :( A good rant but a bad practice much like nudist.

[barb162]

49. but aren't religious institutions treated as charities under the

tax code. Face it, just about all religions do charity so I think they just get lumped together in taxes as non-profits

[spindoctor]

51. Sounds like you have a problem with legislation

I religiously agree with all your points except for the professional confidentiality issue. If lawyers and psychiatrists are exempt, then spiritual counselors should be too. This does not mean that they cannot break this confidentiality at their own discretion.

Anyway, none of these points are religious in nature.

[KG]

52. good post.

be careful of 'thinking' too much, tho. people don't like it.

[Bridget Burke]

54. Ah, an Evangelistic Atheist!

Since Houston built light rail & the bus stops were moved from Main Street, I've missed the street corner preachers.

[Lilith Velkor]

56. The Church of Satan agrees with you.

I know the subject line is a bit provocative, but they're the only church I know of that pays taxes, and AFAIK they don't go in for the confessional stuff either. However, a Satanist attorney might have a bone to pick w/you about attorney-client privilege, but that doesn't have anything to do with religion now that I think about it.

[ret5hd]

57. A satanist confessional...

now thats a good idea for a SNL skit, with Jon in his red devil suit as the priest:

Bless me father for i have sinned. It has been 2 weeks since my last confession. Last tuesday i did not lust after my neighbors wife. And friday i only drank 2 beers, far from enough to get drunk. I have not been dutifully gluttonous all week.

etc etc etc.

[DaDeacon]

63. OK, and chuck can support...

It is great to see that you feel that the church should be taxed so you feel that churches should be able to focus political power more than they do? Do you feel that Mega chuches that pullin in over a Milion a sunday should be allowed to donated money to any one canidate, then host the poles for an area? You see what you say is all fine and good save that fact you seem to lack scope of your actions. On the same foot you seem ok giving a voice to anyone in public but the church? Hmm that 1st admin seems so cruel when it's something we don't like. Oh Well i just hat the one wine shot you get in church Man can a brother get a whole glass!!!

[Catholic Democrat]

65. Wake Up

Just noticing all this discomfort with religion on this board. The Right just loves it and it gives them more ammunition to use against us when saying that Democrats are simply godless. They used it to beat us in the last election when 175,000 Catholics who voted for Gore in 2000 switched to Bush in 2004. Democrats do not have to embrace the religious virtues of the right, but they need to stand up and say we are faithful and here are our values and stop shying away from it. Those Democrats who prefer not to embrace faith need to stop bashing faith at every chance they get and need to start embracing those who have faith in the party and give them a voice.

Unless Democrats want to keep loosing elections?

[Tyler Durden]

67. As someone said to ME above:

You can have YOUR revolution without ME.

I am NOT FAITHFUL, and any attempts to make me so will be met with ridicule.

And if 175,000 Catholics are so foolish as to vote for an administration that lies to them to get their votes, good riddance and may they enjoy the breakdown of the republic that they seem to wish to see.

WE ARE NOT BASHING FAITH. ENJOY your faith. But if YOU as a Catholic had some Southern Baptist get in your face to tell you how you were HELLBOUND for your devotion to the CULT of the WHORE OF BABYLON (that's the Holy Virgin Mary to you), and people told YOU that YOU and YOUR KIDS had to stand there and TAKE IT because it was THEIR RIGHT to put their belief in your face, you're telling me that you'd support that?

Bullshit.

[Behind the Aegis]

74. Discomfort that has been inspired by the religious

You might want to read more of this thread. The discomfort is not with religion, per se, but with those who want their religion to dominate our public policies. This is what the right wants because they are bigots that hide behind the guise of religion. I have no use for their hate. And, what does it matter if the Democrats are "godless." This is supposed to be a SECULAR government, not a theocracy.

As for Democrats embracing faith, I see plenty of that here and in the public forums. The Democratic National Convention was rife with religious over and undertones! I have not seen ANY Democrat 'shy away' from religion, I just don't see them wearing it on their sleeves like the hypocrites of the Right-wing.

Democrats that do not embrace faith need not "embrace" the faithful. It is the other way around! The "faithful" need to stop acting as if they are the only ones with morals because of their faith! The faithful need to embrace those without a prescribed or "correct" faith as people genuinely interested in preserving our democracy!

Democrats will stop losing elections when they stop allowing the religious right from setting the stage. Democrats will stop losing when they stop catering to the Rethug Party. Democrats will stop losing when they show they care more about their constituents than the opinions of people who will NEVER vote Democrat!

[goodboy]

69. Jesus did say, give to Caesar what is Caesar's...(nt)