Should religious beliefs be given more respect than other beliefs?

[Dookus]

Since this seems to be the topic of the day....

Why should I, or anyone, be expected to have greater respect or give greater deference to one's religious beliefs than, say, one's political beliefs, or musical tastes, or attitudes on child-rearing?

I can remember countless threads in which I disagreed with people on all of those things, and people, in general, did not feel personally insulted. Certainly, they didn't hit Alert or post a complaint in ATA.

We can argue about your favorite candidate for President until the cows come home, and in most cases, still remain friends. We can argue about whether or not Ella Fitzgerald is the greatest vocalist of all-time, and two minutes later, exchange fun barbs in the lounge.

But arguing religious beliefs seems different. People somehow DEMAND that their religous beliefs, out of all their beliefs, be given special deference. Why is that?

I'm sincere - I don't want this to devolve into a believer vs. non-believer flamewar. I'm just curious about why some people are so put out about their religious beliefs being challenged, but not their other beliefs.

Keep it clean, and above the belt.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. People HAVE those other beliefs

because of the deep seated nature of religiosity, people's religious beliefs HAVE them often..not always..but often.

[Dookus]

15. If I understand you correctly

you're saying that people choose their other beliefs, but that religious beliefs are so deep-seated that the beliefs control them?

Why would that be? Is it that they're so ingrained from so early that they're hard to overcome, or because they fulfill such a deep emotional need that questioning them is painful?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

17. Depending on the religion, yes

and actually, I could say more..but it has been so refreshing participating in religious wars today that I am now fatigued. Hope you'll forgive me for not elaborating further.

[Dookus]

21. I understand....

but I'm disappointed. Yours was, so far, the only post here that actually addressed the REAL question I asked, which was not a Yes or No question, but a WHY question, despite my thread title.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. OK, I'll give it my best tired shot

but the issue is multifactorial and I fear I won't express it right:

Some religions USE fear as a means of keeping their congregations from QUESTIONING their faith. That is why there are some people of faith that cannot withstand THEIR faith being questioned.

Religion is also far more rooted in identity than political affiliation, although political affiliation is now taking on the aura of religiosity.

Funny thing on this site is...many of the people who are accused of insulting religion broke free from that grip and were angry when they got to the other side of it...so you have two similar identities on opposite sides of the spectrum


anyway...I've been up too long....I know I verbalized this poorly.

[Dookus]

29. No you didn't

you verbalized it well. And I really like your assessment that politicas is the new religion - I see it here all the time. A fundamentalist approach to politics - either you're with us or against us - either you're a REAL Democrat, or you're shit.

I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but I think you're right. People are now self-defining in terms of politics, and that's why we see threads like "My sister's fiance's father's a republican - should I go to the wedding?"

It's a near-religious approach to the issue.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

30. Its tribalism versus spiritualism

[jdj]

134. I'd reverse that. I'd say religion is new politics nt

[tuvor]

2. You may have the best of intentions

but I'm afraid this thread is gonna fall apart just like all the others.

I hope I'm wrong.

[Ladyhawk]

3. Douglas Adams said something very similar to this before he died.

I agree with the both of you.

[GetTheRightVote]

4. No, not in this country based on freedoms

:kick:

[flordehinojos]

5. The short answer is NO. People should be free to espouse their own values

and religious beliefs without pushing them on to others--or pushing them down other people's throats.

Free to worship in the manner of your belief, or free to worship not.

That is what the founding of this country was all about.

[patrice]

6. Defensiveness is a sign of doubt and weakness.

No. Religion deserves no special respect.

If these people were consistent with what they say they believe, they would not need others to support their "faith".

[MoonRiver]

7. No, they shouldn't be.

But go over to GD Politics and try to argue against Kerry running again in 2008. OMG, it's like speaking sacrilege to his supporters. That's why I spend a lot more time over here. Hope you're not a fan of his cause I definitely do not want to get into it, but my point is that passions abound about many things on DU.

[Lexingtonian]

51. well....

A few of us on the opposite side of that particular fence feel the same way about the points raised against him by the half-dozen or so ardent and fervent critics.

Perhaps our p.o.v. is not sufficiently enlightened, but our essential counter-critiques are themselves ultimately answered by professions of dogmatic ideas and unwillingness to account for facts.

[ultraist]

8. No.

Why should I respect "Gays are sinners who will burn in hell" simply because it's cloaked in a religious belief?

Absolutely not. Calling something a religious belief doesn't give someone carte blanche to spread hate and oppression.

[Solly Mack]

9. Ella rules!

I just needed to make that point very very clear. And there'll be no insulting Etta James either while we're at it.

Great question. I'm very interested in the answers.


...gonna go dust off my Big Mama Thornton now, brb

[Dookus]

11. You, of course

are correct. And I JUST got a Big Mama Thornton CD this week!

Your beliefs in all matters are so obviously correct, that you are free to represent me in all matters.

[Solly Mack]

16. Now see, that's compromise

;)

a mutual understanding and appreciation of the things that truly matter...

Didja get the "Complete Vanguard Recordings"? (or?) I love her Hound Dog. (but then who doesn't?)

[Dookus]

25. yes, that's the one

and I haven't listened to it yet. But I am putting it on right now, in your honor.

edit: Whoops... I was wrong. It's Big Mama Thornton with the Muddy Waters Blues Band - 1966.

[Solly Mack]

28. I'm Feeling Alright...good song...anyway

I honestly don't know "why" people are so defensive about their religious beliefs above all other beliefs they hold.

Though I so sometimes think a good deal of it has to do with people refusing to embrace anything, or to be tolerant of anything, that causes them to rethink their entire being...if you build your life around a certain belief, then to ever learn you might have built your life around a lie (or even that others think you have) can be very damaging. It has to be scary to confront that kind of crisis.

Religious beliefs are taught in such a way that belief without question is demanded of those who embrace that religion...they call it faith. Whereas other beliefs a person may hold can safely demand "proof" and no one balks, because "proof" is respected(except in religion, which relies on faith). When we ask someone to back up a claim of "all men like cheese", no one gets defensive because their "very being" isn't tied up in whether or not all men like cheese...but some people are completely tied up with their religion...and any question or comment can be seen as a challenge instead of honest debate on it's merits. And maybe those things seen as challenges scare them.


But I don't know...I'm talking out my ass :)

[Dookus]

31. ahem...

if there's any ass-talking to be done here, it'll be from me. Or my ass.

My opinion, expressed elsewhere here, is that religous beliefs are less-defensible than political or taste beliefs. People are, for the most part, unable to make coherent, logical arguments for their religious beliefs, and get very uncomfortable when asked to defend them. They then turn to a vague demand that religious beliefs be "respected" above and beyond all other sorts of beliefs, which they would be more than happy to argue.

[Solly Mack]

34. Sure, hog the ass talking...

some people are just so tetchy :P

I think you make an excellent point.

edit: damn brain farts...(excuses, excuses)

[morcatknits]

14. Expectations on religion

Part of the problem comes in when we expect our beliefs to inform every issue in a literal manner. We shouldn't expect science to answer the questions better answered by myth, or politics to answer the questions of metaphysics. Not that there aren't influences between areas at times. I don't expect the Bible to tell me literally what to do in every instance but to give me a general set of guidelines and principles to follow. Add to that confusion, the projection of people's personal wishes and fears about dying, and it is a mess. Tonight, any sound made by Mrs. Schiavo was considered trying to communicate, by her family. Sad.

The religionistas do need societal support because they are weak. They just never get the idea that they have to live their beliefs. When I was a kid, the pastor would say, "You are the only Jesus a lot of people will see." Unfortunately the lunatic fringe has become the only Christians a lot of people see, and they are giving Jesus a bad name.
morcatknits

[ProgressiveConn]

10. Any belief that relies on faith as proof is worthless

to everyone but the person with that belief. You shouldn't even open your mouth about a topic if your only reason for believing it is faith.

So IMO religious beliefs are THE LEAST VALID of all beliefs. =)

[jonnyblitz]

12. no. they think so, but no, especially if they have to repress

others in order to adhere to these beliefs, and, in that case, I give them NO respect at all.

[Az]

13. Your last statement puts it perfectly

As long as people keep such discussions clean and above the belt it is very possible for reasonable people to carry on such covnersations.

This is not to say that all people can converse thusly on this topic. There are fanatics on any position. But as long as everyone remains objective it should be possible to maintain a civil dialog.

[caledesi]

18. Uh, No. nt

[greyl]

19. Here's a great Dawkins essay with Adams quote

http://ffrf.org/timely/dawkins.php

Adams: Now, the invention of the scientific method is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked. If it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that. It has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, "Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not?--because you're not!" If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday,' you say, "I respect that."

The odd thing is, even as I am saying that, I am thinking "Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?" But I wouldn't have thought "Maybe there's somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics" when I was making the other points. I just think "Fine, we have different opinions." But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody's (I'm going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say "No, we don't attack that; that's an irrational belief but no, we respect it."

Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labor party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows--but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe . . . no, that's holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that for any other reason other than that we've just got used to doing so? There's no other reason at all, it's just one of those things that crept into being and once that loop gets going it's very, very powerful. So, we are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furor Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be.

[Dookus]

24. Excellent

thank you for that. I hadn't seen it before, and I'm proud to ask the same questions as Richard Dawkins and Douglas Adams.

[trudyco]

33. Hmm. I think we all have a core set of beliefs.

Some call it religion, or base it on a known religion, and some don't.

For example, how would you feel about killing everyone over 20? Do you believe that is wrong? Can you give a scientific reason to not do so? Does it fall into the realm of scientific fact that if not held up to scrutiny should be tossed? Or is it a basic belief that you don't go around killing people? How offended would you be if everybody in the state of Florida started doing that? My bet is that you would be much more "sensitive" to that than say, breastfeeding versus the bottle.

Just my guess.

We all have a belief system. Our core beliefs getting trampled on bring out the most passion. Some peoples' core beliefs are based on their religion. Is it really surprising that they strongly react to a challenge on those beliefs?

Of course some people think they can force their (minority) beliefs on others. That's a whole 'nother argument. I suspect some DUers get the 2 confused. Especially recently with the TS stuff. While I believe TS should be kept alive - I really do believe in erring on the side of life (cringe) and don't believe in Iraq war or Death penalty and personally don't believe in abortion - I also think that it is not congresses' business to override the judicial system, or to politicisize a family matter, or to force antichoice legislation on others.

[Dookus]

36. But evidence shows

that "core" beliefs are anything but "core" beliefs. I was a fundamentalist christian in my teens. I was adamantly anti-abortion - I remember crying because my parents wouldn't let me go with my church to an anti-abortion really in the mid 70s.

Today I'm an absolutist on choice, and an atheist. My beliefs then were not "core" - they were just beliefs I had because I had only ever heard one side of the story.

I spent well over 30 years as a theist of one sort or another. Now I am not. Change is possible.

[BurtWorm]

37. One very important, nearly universal evolutionary precept:

Don't do unto others as you would not have them do unto yourself.

It's called the Silver Rule in the Christian West, but it's much more commonsensical than the Golden Rule, and its evolutionary effect is to ensure that as long as most people observe it, the species will continue.

[Athame]

171. Great quote

Started me thinking. Could it be that the reason we back off from religious arguments is that we have in our bones the memories of horribly destructive wars and other cataclysms based on differences of opinion in the religious realm? It wasn't that long ago that the wrong answer on the religion question could get one burned at the stake or the observance of sabbath on Friday evening would win a ticket to the gas chambers. There was very real physical danger involved in discussing religion outside of one's own circle. Witness the death threats on Michael Schiavo and the judges--the danger is not distant at all. Not to mention the threat of everlasting fire if the deity is denied.

Though there have been political wars, as well, I don't think they have been as permanent nor as wrenching to the fabric of society for generations.

[libodem]

20. great topic

I hope I don't thread kill this one...oh well...I think religion has an emotional element as well as spiritual...It's tied to our values and beliefs which ...because they are value and beliefs...we are prepared to defend them...fight for them...up-hold them...prositalize them...kill for them...die for them....and everyone feels the same about their own beliefs...the beliefs may be different but our attachments are the same..who was it that said religion is the opiate of the masses...it also makes you feel good...it's acceptable magic...(something which we have had very repressed in society)...people are always searching for supernatural phenonomims...because we're curious about the unexplainable...religion is a socially acceptable out-let for the mystical experiance...which for some is their drug of choice...then there's the fellowship and the gathering of like-minded for validation...feels good....then there's the celebration of lifes' passages, birth, death, marriage, christening, bar-mitzvahs, or puberty and then there's the moral teaching...the honesty, respect, not stealing, not killing...incest taboos...ah hell who am I trying' to kid...Its just a Patriarchal, virginity cult

[Blue_In_AK]

22. The only people I get really put out about...

...are the right-wing fundies who want to cram their phony religious pap down my throat, when I have my own spiritual beliefs which are just as valid. For the record, despite my Easter rant yesterday, Belief-O-Matic says I am a Neo-Pagan (100%), Unitarian Universalist (100%) and Mahayana Buddhist (96%), followed closely by liberal Quaker (91%). I think the Jesus I know and admire was a great teacher, and his teachings are more than compatible with the teachings of all the great spiritual teachers through the ages. But I don't know WHO this other Jesus is, and I wish he'd just go away.

I have no problems with anybody here questioning anything about how I believe. I'll be as tolerant of them as they are of me.

[LdyGuique]

23. Belief without proof causes an inner dialogue

Most of us hold two types of opinions. One type is highly personal and has no "right" or "wrong" to it -- such as liking a particular color or food. The other type of opinion can be backed up by some facts -- dispassionate rational facts. True, there are usually countering facts and therein lies many a discussion as to which set of facts is the more accurate.

Religious beliefs aren't based on dispassionate rational facts, per se; although many would argue with that POV. However, one would not have to take a fallback position of "It's faith. One must take it on faith," if this were truly a rational fact-oriented position.

Since there are multiple religions throughout the world, and all claim to be right and NONE have proof that any one of them is right, it's all a moot point. They have BELIEF that they are correct, which is a highly emotional state of mind. This belief immediately puts them on the edge because it is emotional -- and underneath it all is a running dialogue between their rational voice that persistently keeps saying things based on fact. The emotional voice gets all agrieved and upset.

Someone outside who flat out claims that they haven't been convinced rattles the believer. They must attempt to rational facts to support belief, and it all falls apart.

[Dookus]

26. You have come closest to my beliefs

on this issue. I think most people, at least here on DU, are armed and ready to defend their political beliefs. They arrived at them via some understanding of history, policy, et. al. They can defend them. When challenged by another Democrat or a Freeper, they have answers ready.

That is not true for religious beliefs, and I think it makes them very uncomfortable to find themselves in an argument they can't respond to like they do all others. Therefore, they resort to "respect my beliefs, dammit" in the absence of a real, rational argument.

[Inland]

69. Looking for the rattled believer.

I don't see any believers in DU rattled by the mere fact of disbelief. Yes, there are places where heresy is a crime and threats to religious orthodoxy is considered a threat, but it isn't here. After all, nobody comes to DU to find a lot of reinforcment of fundamentalist religion, in the same way nobody comes here to get away from gays or socialists. There are other parties for that.

So all I can say about your response is that it is the only one that can't possibly be true.

Therefore I suggest that in order to find out why believers are aggrieved and upset, you might just ask around.

[saltpoint]

32. Handsome post, Dookus. Special consideration demanded by some --

-- suggest that extraordinary martyrdom has been experienced. I don't buy it.

To cite just one religious example: a religious group believing that they are God's special group by definition is not inclusive. "God loves us more than he loves all the rest of you sinners." Don't buy it.

By extension, an individual who has a "personal" relationship with a trans-human Jesus, for example, by definition is saying his suffering more than others' suffering warrants acknowledgment by a magical figure, a salvational figure, a Messianic figure. I don't buy that either.

Members of either groups -- the religious collective believing they're Chosen or the individual believing a PERSONAL Christ hears their every utterance suggest to me that a hard line has been drawn and it is not the pagans or Buddhists or wiccans etc. who are doing the line-drawing.

[Blue_In_AK]

38. Thumb's up, Old Crusoe.

[BurtWorm]

35. A theist once told me in a debate that there is no problem more central

to human being than "the God problem."

I asked, "Not even the food problem?"

He denied that there was ANY problem greater than the God problem.

So I think my answer has got to be, I don't know why. I really don't.

[Behind the Aegis]

39. Animal Farm

That is what I think of when it comes to religion. Some are MORE EQUAL than others. It is of course not true, and not possible. However, I find it interesting that people get their undies in a bunch when it comes to religion. I am all for being polite, but when your religious beliefs interfere with my EQUAL CIVIL rights, then we have a problem!

Government has no place in religion and religion has no place in government.

[Minstrel Boy]

40. Not more, just different.

You're talking about peoples cores, whether those be theistic or atheistic. I do not believe anything at the core can be distilled to logic alone. There is always other stuff going on that makes us who we are, which leads us to adopt one worldview or another.

We may, with effort, come to know ourselves, and know why we make our choices, but knowing others at their core is much rarer, and is not going to happen on an Internet message board. Because of that - because we cannot know what others know - we should exercise some humility, and act respectfully, when dealing with another's core.

[Dookus]

41. but I disagree

that there is something more "core" about religious beliefs than political beliefs.

Why should that be the case? I used to be Catholic, then fundamentalist, then new-age semi-buddhist, then agnostic, then atheist. The whole time, I was a liberal.

[Minstrel Boy]

46. we're defining religion differently

To me, it's where someone's core values reside. Their non-negotiable kernel. That needn't be theistic. It could be political.

[Dookus]

55. My political beliefs are not religious...

and in fact, they can and DO change when new information arises. Religious beliefs seem somewhat immune to re-evaluation given new facts.

[moof]

47. There should'nt be and there isn't something more "core" about ....

about religious beliefs in reality. But you are discussing people's individual perceptions about reality and not reality itself.
Technically and personally people should have less right to "believe " anything that has little or no evidence to support it. As was stated in the Doug Adams post above the idea gets accepted and time passes.
By the time the idea no longer holds any use in the face of reason and if it has become a tool for profit and control there's too much power at stake to allow anyone to shout " the king was not elected "
Allowing people to think things are truth just because it makes them feel better and allows them to assume that some supernatural being is going to even up all the scores in some afterlife is what helps to keep the masses from taking action when they are all being fitted for chains.

[Inland]

64. Some poltical beliefs are.

It just so happens that this is a liberal/democratic forum. Nobody is walking in telling you that democracy sucks, or that people in fascist states are happier, or that your belief in a liberal democracy is just a funny way you were raised and not really rational.

And it is the same. My own belief in democracy is based in good part on the same sort of mystical bullshit that religion is based on. I don't know WHY democracy would be better for humans, and would be a stable structure, and would be conducive to peace and justice and prosperity, but I sure believe it to be the case. I can't PROVE it the way one can prove evolution. Rationally, I KNOW my vote has not and will not change a single fucking election. I vote anyway. (Shit, the polls are open today. Township offices. No, I don't know what they do.)

I don't have a whole lot to share with someone who is coming from a completely different direction on how society should be organized. We just don't meet many of those people, and if we did, we wouldn't let them argue with us. Heck, even the theocrats don't think that there should be a divine right king, just elections between two conservative fundamentalist christians.

So no, don't step on my political beliefs, either. I just don't have to ask you because we are both largely the same in that regard.

[moof]

42. Only for you dearest pal.

there really seems to be only one major problem here,
the TRUTH !

It is always jarring to be having an enjoyable conservation with what appears to be a reasonable and knowledgeable person and all of a sudden they bring in their special imaginary friend to either,
back them up on some point or dismiss the entire premise and turn it over to the friend so they don't have to think about it or take any action to try and fix the problem themselves.

That pretty much ends any interesting future conversations with that person as it is hard enough to find out what is reality without dealing with people that have so little grasp on it.

It always comes down to the same issue. The person holds two completely
incompatible views at the same time and they will not allow you to get close to pointing it out to them.

This is of course the result of the fact that while "faith" is accepting something is truth without proof, most people are not able to grasp the concept that since they freely admit they are accepting something to be true without proof, they are not free to say "it is true" only that they "think it is true" or "hope it is true" not they
"know it is true" for something to be known to be true it has to be true for everyone.

There are a couple other minor factors that come into play depending on the person but when you tell anyone that what they think and say about any subject is not true, you have in effect, for most of them, from their point of view, called them a liar. No one likes to be called a liar and certainly not someone that has no way to show you that they really really believe and know what they have said is truth.
As the old adage goes there is no better liar than a person who is sure they are telling the truth.

[Dookus]

43. thank you my old friend...

there is much troof in what you say.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. Okey-dokey, I'm going to go through this once more, and then it's

time for bed.

I don't care if someone questions my beliefs or doesn't share them. I've lived amiably in Japan, for goodness' sake, where most people are secular and those who aren't are mostly Buddhists of one variety or another. I've known atheists all my life, including people who were friends of my parents (and my father was a Lutheran pastor).

If you don't agree with my beliefs, I can certainly live with that. If you want to bash fundies and their influence (or perhaps more accurately, the way they're being used) in the current administration, I'm right there with you. I resent them terribly for taking a religion that has been the source of some of the peak experiences of my life and turning it into a sledgehammer to pound other people into the ground with.

I am also frustrated because I know that they will never listen to me. Telling liberal Christians that they need to "fix" the fundamentalists is like telling Democrats that they need to "fix" the Socialist Workers Party. And yet I see this again and again from the taunters, asking us DU Christians why we aren't stopping the fundies and why we aren't leaving our "right wing" churches. Short answer: we aren't in right wing churches in the first place. We would not be welcome in the right wing churches. They hate us MORE than they hate atheists, believe it or not, because they think that we know the "truth" and are the disciples of Satan perverting it. If there's one thing I would like DU atheists to realize, that is it.

As I mentioned in Hamlette's thread, if you don't like the way I dress, it doesn't bother me. But if you come at me saying, "Your clothes are ugly, the fact that you dress that way proves that you're either stupid or crazy, people dressed like you have been mean to me, so I have a right to call you ugly, and if everyone dressed the way I do, this world would be a better place," I'd probably react negatively.

That's what I'm seeing from some (not all) of the atheist posters. People who are in psychological pain over what self-styled "Christians" have done to them are taking out their rage on a group of Christians who are the least likely to have caused their pain in the first place and who share their political values.

It's as if they're saying, "The fact that these other people were obnoxious to me gives me the right to be obnoxious to fellow DUers."

Another thing is that the critics are often arguing out of ignorance. They taunt us about believing that sin was caused by Eve or that Noah fit all the animals on one boat. News flash: liberal Christians don't believe the Bible is literally true.

They taunt us about the Crusades and the Inquisition--which I learned about from my father the Lutheran pastor.

They taunt us about "religion as the source of all the evil in the world." Oh come on, now, ALL the evil? That must mean there's no evil in North Korea.

They tell us that no rational person can be religious because yada yada.

But religion is experiential, not logical. That's what most atheists miss. Giving religious people a laundry list of reasons why they shouldn't believe the way they do is like telling a person who is in love that they shouldn't love their lover. You may think that your friend's lover is ugly and stupid, but you know better than to say it to your friend's face--at least I hope you do.

Finally, and here's what's really crazy-making: the angry atheists (as opposed to the calm and rational ones) are arguing both sides of two questions. 1) We get both "Why aren't the liberal churches speaking out?" and "All churches should butt out of politics." 2) Believers who do follow the orthodox tenets of their religion get hassled for that, while believers who do not accept all the tenets are derided as "cafeteria Christians."

I don't know what brought on the dogpile of angry atheists this weekend. I think perhaps we're all frustrated because the Republicans are triumphant in some aspects of their program and falling apart in others and the Democrats seem ill-equipped to overcome the Republicans' strengths or take advantage of their weaknesses. The frustrations are coming out in the form of infighting. It doesn't seem to matter what the DU Christians say or do. The attacks continue.

With the Schiavo case in the news 14/7, I suppose that non-religous DUers who are angry at the media circus and the havoc that fundies have wreaked on this country in the last four years are taking it out on the one group of Christians who they know won't beat them up, fire them from their jobs, or send them hate mail.

I've been on DU since March 2001, and I've never seen it this acrimonious. It's very distressing to me, not because I feel "persecuted," not because I'm "whining," not because I'm "trying to cram religion down people's throats," but because a forum that has been part of my life for four years has turned markedly hostile in a fairly short time.

I've never hidden my beliefs, but I've also never proselytized or disparaged people with different worldviews. I've tried to correct misinformation, but that's as far as I've gone. I get along fine with atheists in everyday life.

I'm not whining. I'm angry, as I would be if strangers (and most of you are strangers, let's face it) suddenly started attacking my clothes, my taste in music, or my choice of friends.

It's just plain rude, and it's cowardly to attack people who haven't hurt you when you could be out there facing up to the people who HAVE hurt you.

[saltpoint]

49. Whether you will accept it or not, LL, you write beautifully but --

-- you have missed a couple points.

Your post claims that you're under attack, that some people on DU are somehow rude or disrespectful.

I believe it goes both ways and I believe you know that.

You are a participant in the "snarkiness" as much as many others. Your experience and beliefs are not in question per se, but you have made it personal and then divided yourself and those you agree with with anyone else holding an opposing view.

When you're part of the "infighting," as you put it, then you need to take your share of the blame. If you don't want to do that, you should allow that others' opinions and thoughts on these boards are as legitimate as yours.

That would be the democratic approach to the matter, IMHO.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. Sorry if I've been snarky, but I'm real frustrated

It seems as if I correct a bit of misinformation and then one or two posts down, some other taunter comes on and repeats the same bit of misinformation.

People used to read the posts above theirs in the thread. :shrug:

[moof]

52. You said you were going to bed.

Irregardless, now that you have lamented having to correct the same misinformation more than once. How is it you think it's misinformation when the subject matter is possibly the most subjective "non" topic that
people discuss. Shirley the information no matter how fractured it seems to you, must be "true " for someone's religion.

But then again that is why there seems little reason to try and discuss
anything as obtuse as religion. There is not even a decent common understanding of the definition of the terms.

Also besides the non-believers and the non-non-believers there are a few of us out there that have no dog in the dogpile or fight.

[saltpoint]

53. Possibly it's a case where religious feeling generally is strong.

It runs deep and strong through history generally and through individual lives more specificially. Not an easy stream to cross.

At the same time there has been a ridiculous defense of individual, personal relationships with "Jesus" and "God" in recent posts, and many posters of unlike mind and experience feel that special consideration is being asked, if not demanded. Of course, progressives are suspicious of any authoritarian tradition, whether it's a ballot or a Bible that inspires it.

I can "sculpt" a personal Jesus of history, having learned carefully and then abandoned the Christian faith. My Jesus was smarter than the average revolutionary, but his heart was found only beyond the institutional temple, on out into the desert, where his meditative states could be individually (and very privately) achieved, or, absent that, achieved in the company of a few companions.

Of those companions, I love it that Dan Brown is challenging centuries of anti-woman bullshit in the Catholic Church. Women should claim apostolic descendancy from Mary Magdalen, preferrably by this weekend. If Rome denies the claim, a separate church could be formed. I think it would have many initial and long-term members and would survive easily.

Back to Jesus. Smart, caring, "mindful", and furious at the local Roman authority for overt oppression of dignity and human needs. He gathered his group, made certain they had swords for the work ahead (they were armed at Gethesame). A brilliant revolutionary. He lost the military attempt.

Paul hijacked the faith not unlike Phelps and Falwell are doing today. I have the feeling that had he met him, Paul would have made Jesus puke instantaneously.

That's a Jesus I respect very much. But I don't give much credence to people who demand special consideration for their private faith, as I believe from many traditions' study that private belief should not be grafted onto public policy, even if it COULD be grafted onto public policy. History isn't kind to people who've tried it.

I love your writing, damn it, and I wish you'd accept that praise.

Good wishes.

[Dookus]

54. I'm sorry you

felt this thread was an attack on you. I re-read my original post, and I still feel it was sufficiently respectful.

Your long post was a perfect example of what I was questioning. Why did you feel so defensive about what I asked? Why did you feel attacked?

I honestly don't understand it.

As to your claim that DUers don't belong to right-wing churches, I disagree. I've met many Catholics here.

[Spider Jerusalem]

56. But the Catholic Church ISN'T necessarily "right wing".

True, the Church is very socially conservative on issues like abortion, birth control, divorce, and homosexuality...but the Church's positions on other things...like poverty relief, opposition to the death penalty, opposition to unjust wars, and so on...are pretty liberal, and very far removed from the views of Fundamentalist Protestants.

[Dookus]

59. The current pope

has been an opponent of Liberation Theology.

The church is NOT completely opposed to the Death Penalty, despite what a lot of people say. Read the catechism.

I'm not sure opposition to unjust war is necessarily a liberal value, either. I think a lot of people across the political spectrum are opposed to unjust wars.

[Zynx]

79. Catholics range from right-wing to quite liberal.

To believe that we are all Pope-following robots is quite insulting and demeaning. I demand an apology.

[Dookus]

82. demand away

you won't get one, because I never said what you think I said.

[Inland]

62. Now I don't have to post anything.

And I shouldn't, because all these points get raised again and again, although not always so eloquently.

[trudyco]

70. Thanks for saying this so well - nt

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

140. LL, if EVERY Du'er SHARED their religion as you do,

I would agree with most of your points.

The fact is, we have people JUSTIFYING many oppressive things lately on DU. I challenge the progressiveness of SOME of these Christians and I reject their double standard..the one that allows them to use their religion in a manner deleterious to the freedom of others while rejecting those aspects of their religions that impinge on their freedom to live life as they see fit.

That kind of religiousity is a racket..it's like selling candy in the front of the store while your bookie is running numbers in the back room.

[Spider Jerusalem]

45. H.L. Mencken summed it up nicely, I think:

"We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

[TrustingDog]

48. Hell, no. A large part of our problems are stemmed from idiotic voodoo.

and I also believe the 'real' religious people will not be offended by these words.

[LittleClarkie]

58. I really should go to bed

first thing that popped into my head was "voodoo economics?"

Oye.

[Carni]

178. I agree with you if a person's core belief is strong

Why the hell should they care what I or anyone else says?

The types of people in the general population (not just here on DU)
that I referenced in another post (and got a snotty reply to) are the ones that have floated like lemmings into this whole new style commercialized American *Christian* movement over the last few years.

They have suddenly adopted all things *Christian* like a person would pick up a new hot CD.

If someone is truly firm and committed to their own beliefs they wouldn't be offended by a string like this and they wouldn't feel the need to lecture Athiests (Of which BTW I am not one)

I don't think religious views should hold any more sway than any other opinion on here.

JMO--there are many courteous religious people expressing their views on DU and I would not dream of offending them, but I have also noticed that there some on DU that will jump on posters and start lecturing them about the arrogance of Athiests if they say anything even remotely questioning of the current overly pushy religious element in this country.

I am not backing down on my contention that these right winged nuts have hijacked the Christian religion in this country...it's a fact and a lot of people have had it with being lectured and preached to.

I am one of those people.

I didn't read the posts on DU over the weekend but I think what
we are seeing is people at overload with the whole commercialized *Faith* thing being foisted on us by the WH and the media.

It has been a constant barrage over the course of the last two weeks.

[LittleClarkie]

57. All I'm asking for is the same respect

I don't like it when the guy I support is getting bashed as opposed to criticized.

Some of us are followers of Gawd and Jeebus. We're just looking for a no hate speech zone. Fundamentalist make our teeth itch too. We're on your side for the most part.

I don't want anything special. You don't have to bow down and worship my beliefs (just me :D). And I don't care if you worship a hairy muffin. Most of us here are enlightened enough not to bash atheists or agnostics for their unbelief. Just looking for the same.

I would hope that folks would have the same respect for each others political beliefs or other beliefs. But then we don't always get that either here at DU, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised at occasionally being called on my faith in ye ol' Sky Daddy.

I defend John Kerry too, and get called a sychophant for the trouble. If I defend my faith, same difference. I get abuse either way, so what the fuck. Carry on. Is it allowed. Of course. Without rebuttal. Not necessarily. In many cases, we're not abrogating, we're rebutting. For some reason, one gets mistaken for the other.

If y'all could just aim the rant cannon specifically at the Republican Fundamentalists, and try not to frag your fellow Democrats, albeit Christian ones, in the process.

Now if you'll excuse me, I look like this right now. Erica go beddy bye.

:hangover:

[moof]

65. "All I'm asking for is the same respect " is one of the minor problems.

No one has the right to stand up and demand " the same " respect for something that simply does not exist as things get that do exist.

It seems many people confuse opinion and belief.
While everyone has an opinion about most things usually those things do in fact exist for everyone.
Belief is not an opinion, it is something that appears to be subjective and is up to each individual who professes to have a belief to define it to their own satisfaction.
So you can not expect people to grant the " same respect " to something which is usually one of a kind and consists of different parts,
most of which have been made up and handed down thru various myths and
questionable writings over several thousand years.

When people expect the same respect for something they have no proof for as for something which has plenty of supporting evidence it can set a bad precedent.

As for your muffin statement, it underlines the problem. If someone decides to worship a muffin they should get the same respect for their deity as Newton's laws on Gravity? Sorry but the difference is obvious, the laws of gravity work exactly the same for everyone everywhere but you have to take word of the person that worship's the muffin as the only evidence that it indeed has some supernatural abilities.

[Inland]

76. Okay, muffin worship is out and gravity is in.

Since nobody is arguing for muffins or against gravity, what do we do with everything else?

Not everything is unproven and unprovable, but I don't think you have a workable distinction once you move away from physics.

Where does something like "all men are created equal" fit in? Gravity, or muffins?

Seems to me that I could assert that all men are created equal and get a lot more respect for that thesis than the Christians get for God. Not because it is proven, or provable; not because it is an immutable fact; but because its a unproven, vague, pie in the sky foo-foo muffin that everybody likes because it is a liberal democratic forum.

I am sure that in a religion only, all politics invited forum, you would find your doppelganger asserting that religion and political belief were of different quality, and because everyone has some sort of religious belief and there are so many directly contradictory political opinions, clearly one is gravity and the other muffins. But it's more self selection.

[moof]

81. It seems someone feels that muffin worshipers should be afforded

the " same respect " as people that worship any other deity.

The point being that people are willing to dismiss such worship because it seems obvious to them that the possibility is remote to the point of impossibility. But that is exactly how some people view all of the deity worshipers.

The rest of your post has some interesting observations, but it seems like we need to make sure we are both on the same page at this point before getting into all the errors with the constitution.

[Inland]

97. Seems to me your politics has more in common with muffins than you admit.

I still don't see the difference between faith in a deity and, say, faith in a premise like "all men are created equal". Which, by the way, isn't in the constitution but the Declaration of Independence.

In fact, most of the political, non-religous premises of the liberal democrat's of this forum are articles of faith, not proof. All men are created equal. A right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Universal sufferage. None of those premises are subject to proof like a law of physics. In fact, Jefferson said some rights were self evident. He didn't try to prove them. He said he didn't have to, which some call the sine qua non of religion.

I suggest that the only reason why you have placed religion with muffin worship and politics with an iron law of nature is that we all agree on the politics so nobody ASKS you to prove the premises, not because you can.

Therefore, if I were to treat religion the same way as politics, I wouldn't bust the chops of the believers' over religion anymore than I would bust your chops over your inability, or unwillingess, to prove the accuracy of your most cherised political beliefs.

[moof]

166. As feared, not the same page yet.

Politics are in the same boat as religion,
neither really exist they way most people seem to percieve them.
Put another way, both religion and american politics are not debatable topics until better evidence to support their existance is presented.

Apologies for the misspeak on the constitution.

As for getting on the same page the topic here is why do people seem to ask for more respect for their belief in a deity than their opinion of a certain type of music. Using your statement,

"I still don't see the difference between faith in a deity and, say, faith in a premise like "all men are created equal"."

The difference between deitys, muffins, gravity & men is that there is no credible evidence that deitys exist. Also, "all men are created equal" is an opinion that does not require faith as it is easily disproved for most intents and purposes.

To help eliminate some other canards, no one is just a liberal and there is a case to be made that there are no such things as democrats holding office any more either. This is another minor part of the problem with religion,
it is so unable to withstand and serious study that people seem to want to wear the somewhat generic/universal " christian " label rather than examine their religion close enough to see if they are indeed what they are professing to be.

[AgadorSparticus]

60. I am of the camp that faith should never be blind.

If you don't understand or know what you believe, then the truth in the "faith" has no grounding. It means nothing.

I think it boils down to our human insecurities of wanting to be "better, different, original, etc" than the next guy.

Most of the time, it seems we are more preoccupied with differentiating ourselves instead of recognizing the commonality that binds us.

[Tyler Durden]

68. Unless it envolves Ginger Baker, Steve Winwood and Eric Clapton.

he he.

[beam me up scottie]

94. I got it!

Little late, but I got it!

[xpat]

61. Religious beliefs deserve as much respects as

belief in astrology and little greenmen. They deserve less respect than belief in unicorns.

[ananda]

63. which jesus?

Somebody pointed out to me the other day that Bush xtians only worship and believe in the infant Jesus and the crucified Jesus, totally ignoring the middle life of Jesus and his teachings.. instead superimposing the senex autocratic god of the Old Testament onto the Jesus of their intolerant, unbiblical, fanatical proscriptions for the "culture of life" ... righteo.

Sue

[Inland]

71. You know, I think that would be great.

I think a lot of DU religious would settle for just that much respect, the same kind of respect that this thread gets.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=245x3540

[Dookus]

72. That thread is in a private group

wherein people are not allowed to express disagreement.

[Inland]

74. One opinion that religious belief should get same respect as astrology.

I think religious DUers would jump on that.

Is there an offer on the table, or not?

[Dookus]

83. I don't understand your point

in the thread you linked to, disagreement is FORBIDDEN. Nobody can express views contrary to the astrologists'. What you perceive as respect is merely admin-enforced unanimity of opinion.

[Inland]

98. So let me be absolutely clear.

You aren't in the astrology forum here. But nobody takes the time and trouble to reach out and challenge the astrology or astrologers.

The poster said that religion deserved the same respect as astrology. I would think that the religious would take up that offer in a second. I would think you would be thrilled, since it means no special treatment.

If someone is making the offer. How about it?

[Dookus]

102. There's a reason I'm not in that group

and it's a group, not a forum. I am not permitted to post there.

But you can search the old Meeting Room archives if you'd like to see exactly how much astrology was respected before they were given a private group.

[Inland]

106. Whatever. I get the picture. No respect for religious beliefs.

Yes, it really was meant to be a trap. There's a reason why you don't reach out and take a whack at the astrologers, and a reason why you refuse to do so after a few opportunities.

You SAID you didn't think religion should get special treatment. Another SAID religion should be treated with the same respect as astrology. I think that the religious would find that peachy, given the hands off treatment that you guys can't help but give astrology.

But there's a problem, and the problem is that you really don't want to treat religious beliefs with the same respect that astrology beliefs are treated. You don't want them treated the same.

[Dookus]

110. I'm sorry

I'm not understanding you. You propose some sort of "challenge", but I can't accept it without knowing what you're talking about.

If you want me to give religion the same respect I give astrology, I'm afraid you're too late. I already do.

[Inland]

115. Nope. Too late. See my other post.

A crying shame, really.

[Dookus]

117. oh fergawdsake

can't you just SAY what you're trying to say? Your game is ridiculous.

[The Magistrate]

119. Your Point, Mr. Inland, Is Very Flawed

There are closed religious groups on Democratic Underground, as well, and if you desired one, you would only have to get a small number of donors to support the project, and it would be brought into existance, with a charter to keep scoffers out, and the full weight of the moderators and the Administrators to back that exclusion. If someone were to post an astrological explaination of some major political event in General Discussion, it would in all likelihood be pretty roughly handled by persons who think the very idea is rediculous, though we moderators would certainly excise personal and group attacks against proponents of astrology, and comments that were clearly and indisputeably insulting disparragements of it. We do that where religion is concerned, and any other thing identifiable, for that matter.

Nor is astrology too closely comparable to religion, except perhaps in some aspects that you would probably find uncomfortable, and that it is not, in courtesy, my intent to too deeply explore here. Astrology has next to no social influence, beyond out of date pick-up lines: even the greatest proportion of people who pay for horoscopes do not really make much attempt to shape their lives by them. No form of astrology dictates the policy of a major political party; no organized body of astrologers and their adherents agitates tirelessly for laws that would greatly restrict the liberty, and deeply infringe the conscience, of many of their fellow citizens. Astrology is a belief system, but it is not a religious belief system; it is a mere sort of proto-science, that has been largely discarded in favor of the more prosaic efforts of astronomers and psychiatrists, and has never been able to effect an empirical proof of its claims to accuracy and predictive value.

[Inland]

126. Ah,but that's the rub. Nobody minds discussing the power of churches

separation of church and state, etc., not here on DU. The liberal churchmen here are quite in accord with all those items, which are necessarily political.

That is a far cry from a religious debate wherein the truth or falsity of the religion is made the central issue. That is what I object to, being irrelevant.

The reason that the truth of falsity of astrology is not debated cannot be because astrologers are innocuous. The DUers here with religious beliefs aren't a threat, either. But their balls are regularly busted anyway. What is the legitimate reason for telling DUers that God is a myth and their belief is delusional?

When I say I want to know if religion gets the same respect as astrology, I am very serious. People who are on OUR SIDE aren't a danger, whether astrologers or mainline christian, and it seems to me that all this "debate" on religious beliefs is a lashing out at something else entirely. In tone and in substance,it is clear to me that the christian allies here are whipping boys for those true enemies that are out of reach and frustration and illogic rule the day.

[Dookus]

130. I will say it once again

The reason astrology and other such fields are not "attacked" with the same regularity religion is is because they NOW HAVE A PRIVATE GROUP WHERE SKEPTICS ARE FORBIDDEN TO POST!

Please read that again. And again. Keep reading it until you understand it.

[Inland]

165. I understood you. You have no point.

If you spent less time repeating the irrelevant and spent more trying to comprehend, you would be there three times over.

[Bill McBlueState]

92. from that group's mission statement

"This group is intended as a positive place for those who desire a deeper discussion of these stated topics and is not intended as a place to argue the merits of beliefs or choices."

People have been banned as a result of disregarding that mission statement. So naturally the beliefs stated in that group appear to be widely respected. I suppose people could start a Christianity group where disagreement with Christian tenets was forbidden. But people might not learn very much in a group like that.

[Dookus]

96. There are already at least two such groups

[Bill McBlueState]

100. meanwhile

Meanwhile, the atheists group mission statement says "...anyone is welcome to participate..." and the science/skepticism/pseudoscience group statement says, "Non-skeptics are invited to participate."

It appears some people think of debate as a helpful tool, while others fear it. It goes back to what you say about according respect to certain beliefs. Some beliefs lead to groups where a protective wall is built to keep out even friendly debate, while other beliefs are more open to criticism.

I'm not sure why that's the case with, say, astrology, but for religion, the heaven/hell mythology is a strong motivator. It's rare that anyone claims you'll go to hell for voting for the wrong guy, but disagreeing with an ancient verse will apparently send you off to the flames.

[Inland]

101. That's the group. I'm not a member. Nor are you.

The beliefs appear to be widely respected not because there is a group, but because nobody in GD bothers to reach out and give astrology a whack.

Yes, it could be because unlike Christianity, astrology is a completely rational, scientifically based and verifiable process. In other words, deserving of the same respect that the hardminded atheists reserve for empirically tested laws of physics.

That would be in line with the implications of the last two sentences of your post--disagreement with Christian tenets is an educational process for Christians that the astrologers don't need, already being practically as respectable as atheists.

The poster said that religious beliefs should get the same respect as astrology. Is that an offer on the table? Because I bet that the religious would leap at it. And if not, why not?

[Dookus]

104. we have explained this:

that is a group in which I AM NOT PERMITTED TO POST, nor can other skeptics. We are NOT ALLOWED to post there. Do you get it?

[Inland]

109. So post here.

You know, I have never seen anyone go out of their way to communicate how they feel to astrologers.

Nothing like "delusional" used in connection with astrologers.

Seems to me like someone offered the same respect to the religious. Yes, or no? Yes, you leave religious tenets alone as none of your particular concern like astrology, or no, you talk about fairies and myths and delusion and how awful it is that science doesn't rule the skywatchers.

[Dookus]

111. are you kidding me?

Go look in the meeting room. I, and others, have stated unequivocally and often that astrology is bunk, and people who believe in it are either delusional or easily misled, if not downright stupid.

If you think I have some sort of respect for astrology that I don't give to religion, you're mistaken. Pointing to a private group from which SKEPTICS ARE BANNED is not a good way to get a feel for how people feel about astrology here.

[Inland]

114. Too late. Stripes shown.

See, once you have to be prodded into an insult, rather than, say, make a bunch of posts gratuitously, we can see that religion and astrology aren't treated the same.

Fact is, there are plenty of adherents of fung shui, astrology, cupping, the whole works, in DU. But they aren't smacked around regularly. So religion doesn't get smacked around because it is bunk. It's something else.

You really could try to honestly explain why that is, and if you did, I am sure that it comes down to something like, those beliefs aren't bothering me. Something akin to toleration. But Christians are skin off your nose, and therefore its time to take a stand and end the tolerance. As the righties say, they are fair game.

It's too bad, really, becuase the christians in DU have nothing to do with any of the ones vexing the nation, really, but since they are available, they get the full venting. It's a damn shame when being a liberal democrat means running a gauntlet over something that really is none of your concern as an American or a DUer. It's not as if people are breaking the doors to talk to you or me. It's a luxury I can't afford.

[Dookus]

116. you just don't get it

they USED to be slapped around all the time. Now they are in PROTECTED GROUPS FROM WHICH SKEPTICS ARE BANNED!

Why can't you grasp this concept?

They are NOT being given special respect. They are INSULATED from disagreement.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. If you had been here before the groups were created, you would've seen that they were given very little deference.

[Inland]

120. Nonsense.

Why wouldn't astrologers get slapped around in GD on a regular basis, along with Christians and other people with silly beliefs?

You never answer that, because you can't. The only possible answer is that a silly belief in some metaphysical claptrap is no skin off your nose and not worth your time. Or anyone else's. It isn't a threat. It isn't even an irritation. It is tolerated. Tol ler ra ted.

Stop treating the religious as if their claptrap was a threat to our way of life that astrology is not, give it the same space as respect, and it'll be fine.

Why won't DU do that? Why treat religion as if it were a special form of claptrap, and what's even more puzzingly, why do you pretend that DU doesn't?

[Dookus]

124. will you please take a deep breath

count to ten and articulate your argument clearly? I really have no idea what you're trying to say.

If you're saying what I think you're saying, you claim that astrology and similar disciplines are treated respectfully here, but religion is not. If I am correct... you are just blatantly wrong.

Magical thinking got slapped around very regularly here UNTIL THEY WERE GIVEN A PRIVATE GROUP WHERE SKEPTICS WERE FORBIDDEN!!!

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dookus]

132. I am sincerely not being thick on purpose

you are being obtuse. I have asked you repeatedly to state your thesis clearly, and you have refused to do so. I am responding only to what I *THINK* you're trying to say.

I have told you repeatedly that astrology used to be attacked as claptrap daily here until they were given a private forum that forbids skeptics from participating. I have told you that many times in this thread, and you keep disregarding it.

What obvious truth do you want me to admit? The lie that astrology is treated respectfully here?

I'll say it yet again - astrology is NOT attacked here daily simply because its adherents now have a private group where skeptics are forbidden from participating.

There was a time when astrology was a hot topic in public forums, and it was attacked with great regularity. I have repeatedly pointed you toward the Meeting Room archives where you could see that for yourself.

Instead, you keep making the same inane claim over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and you refuse to acknowledge the very simple flaw in your premise.

Again, astrology is NOT attacked here daily because its adherents now have a private group where skeptics are forbidden from participating.

Your thesis that astrology is afforded more respect than religion is just plain wrong.

[Inland]

143. Ah, but you see--the adherents didn't make religious belief

a hot topic here.

Who did? Who decided that it was really important to discuss christian rituals, religious delusions, and not astrology?

Somebody who decided that one set of claptrap is safe and not threatening, and one set is not.

The astrologers were allowed to withdraw from the field and keep their own irrelevant beliefs to themselves. The religious, particularly christians, aren't. They have to run the gauntlet.

Unlike other people, being liberal democrats isn't enough for them to earn their welcome.

So please stop trying to say they are treated the same. Would that they were, and so that nobody put baiting posts in GD for the religious, just as nobody bothers with the astrologers, not because they are right but because they are tolerated as political allies despite their ridiculous beliefs. Don't insult my intelligence and pretend that the religious are treated the same way. I'm not going to count posts that we both know exist.

So why don't the religious get the courtesy of a little live and let live, like the astrologers? I've already said why.

[Dookus]

144. Perhaps you've noticed

that there have been a few items in the news recently with religious undertones?

And again, you keep falsely asserting that astrologers get a free ride here. They do not. They simply post in a protected forum where they can get no opposition.

However, if public policy issues were being decided based on astrology, I can assure you there would be more than a few threads about it here in GD.

[AZCat]

148. It almost makes one long for the days of...

Nance Reagan (wow).

Back when the world (wide web) was young and the dew behind my ears had not yet dried, a good rant on Nancy's bizarre astrological fascination was all it took to unite disparate bands of roving progressives.

Now we have all this wonderful technology and it just lets us bicker more quickly. Adams and Jefferson had to wait weeks before composing a brisk riposte, while we can do it almost instantly.



Ediot (heh): I love technology, but there's no apostrophe... (at least not where I put it)

[Inland]

162. Which are handled by the usual means of separation of church and

state, and not handled by saying Jesus isn't God or any of the other dead end, go on for another thousand years and eventually lose religious debates.

That's the marvel of our democracy. You don't have to tell your political allies that they are delusional nutbags. But the fact is, some really, really want to. They don't want to discuss the law, or public policy. They want to let their liberal, democratic christian allies feel what it's like to be preached to in an obnoxious manner--as if they don't know. Another marvelous act of self loathing and self destruction for the democrats. How they must laugh.

Of course nobody posts against the astrologers. Being right or wrong is irrelevant to getting smacked around. It's that the christians and religious are deemed dangerous deluded, even if liberal democrats. That's equal treatment? Of course not. You think that unequal treatment is deserved due to the clear and present danger of those Lutherans.

Is there any point to it besides a little self gratifying ability to lord it over some liberal democratic christians because nobody can get at Bush or Robertson? I doubt it. I haven't seen any of this public policy thing yet when it comes to discussing whether a religion is true. Looks more like the easy fun of baiting the readily available.

[Dookus]

164. I don't see a whole lot of debate here in GD

about whether religion is true. We discuss religion here as it intersects with public, political issues.

Yes, there's been a lot of it recently, but that's due to the religious right making a lot of news lately.

But let's get off this whole subject -it's a huge distraction from the purpose of this thread.

Why should religious beliefs be given special deference?

If Senate Republicans passed a bill tonight outlawing the use of condoms, I would expect a fight, and I doubt people here would be defending them. yet when the Catholic Church outlaws the use of condoms, and I complain, I'm accused of bashing. Can you tell me why the church is allowed to have regressive policies, but the Senate isn't?

[Inland]

168. Now you are treating me like a fool. Time to stop.

Really, not a whole lot of debate over whether a religion is true.

And of course, whether that is right or wrong--you just move right along, and suddenly the issue is whether religious beliefs get "deference", a straw man if there ever was one.

Never mind. It's all just too sad. I'm calling it a night and going to hope that I don't dream of another six years of rule by the religious right.

[Dookus]

169. A straw man?

by returning the question in my original post? Good night. The rest will do you good.

[Carni]

179. It's spelled *Feng shui* and feel free to rag on it

I personally think Feng Shui is interesting but by all means give it a good whack because I won't go hide under my bed over it.

People laughing at me doesn't phase me in the least.

I have my own thoughts and apply them regularly if it pleases me.

[SmokingJacket]

66. The Holocaust might have something to do with it.

Last time people got all worked up about the worth of someone else's religion.... well, you know what happened.

History has a powerful effect. As it should. I'm an atheist, but I treat people's religious beliefs with kid gloves. That's a road we don't want to go down.

Race gets special treatment too -- when people let themselves indulge in racism, things like the Rwandan genocide happen.

[Dookus]

73. Really?

you think Christians in the US are afraid they're going to be wiped out by the atheists? How will that occur? Atheists don't control anything. The national convention of elected atheists could hold their meeting in my bathroom, and I could still easily make my way to the shower.

[SmokingJacket]

77. No...

I just mean that a certain amount of over-sensitivity toward religion is understandable, considering our collective history of religious intolerance.

:hi:

[Dookus]

85. well

a look at history would indicate to me, at least, that the atheists and other non-christians are in far greater danger.

[SmokingJacket]

95. You might be right.

One reason I'm not a big fan of religion in general is its history of oppressing OTHER religions. It's why I LOOOOVE the separation of church and state. No way I'll sit back and let our country turn into a theocracy.

We don't disagree.

[arwalden]

67. Absolutely NOT... Yet Many Religionists Here Feel ENTITLED To It.

[Zynx]

75. People should always be shown respect.

When an atheist calls me "stupid" for believing in God, I take exception to that. If I were an atheist I would take exception to being told I was going to hell. Religious beliefs are points of severe discrimination if they are not shown respect. Throughout history, you could be killed for being of the "wrong" religion in ancient Rome, Middle Ages Europe, or for having a religion in some of the Communist nations of the 20th century. All religious beliefs must be shown respect if we are to avoid that sort of situation.

The fact of the matter is that most religious debates between other religions or between the religious and the non-religious happen in the absence of many facts unlike political debates. No one can "prove" their position. I can attempt to rationally postulate the existence of God just as you can attempt to rationally postulate the non-existence of God, but neither of us will prove anything conclusively. Thus, since we are operating from an equal footing with no answers to the basic questions, there is no point in not showing respect. I believe what I choose to, just as you do and we should leave it at that. Religious debates never go anywhere and thus all religious beliefs and the lack thereof should be kept to oneself.

Political debates on the other hand are usually about the facts such as how much revenue the federal government has and what expenditures will be. Political beliefs are usually based on one's interpretation of a set of concrete facts whereas religious beliefs are based on faith or the lack thereof and thus are completely different.

Regardless, people should always be given at least some basic respect for their opinions. You can try to prove an opinion is incorrect, but you should never put your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALALALALAALALALALALA! You're stupid.". That happens all too often in religious debates and in political debates in the modern age.

[LittleClarkie]

90. I've been thinking that perhaps respect is not the word

common courtesy is.

Maybe we should just stick to the weather and everyone's health.

[BuyingThyme]

78. No

[slackmaster]

80. Religious and political beliefs are equally protected

Both the right to worship as one chooses and the right to political speech are enumerated rights, specially protected under the First Amendment. Right up there with freedom of assembly and freedom of the press.

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[Dookus]

86. the constitution protects neither

religious nor political beliefs from disagreement, or even scorn. It prevents the government from outlawing those beliefs.

[slackmaster]

87. That's a fine point you're putting on it

They are specially enumerated rights. I concede the Bill of Rights specifically proscribes government infringement only. You have the right to say something contrary to something I say, I have a right to say my religion is better than yours. But I have no right to interfere with you exercising your religion. I have no right to silence your political speech.

[Dookus]

88. exactly

but we're not talking about silencing anybody.

We're discussing why some people feel religious beliefs should be given more deference than other kinds of beliefs they hold.

[kenny blankenship]

84. 9 out of 10 religious people think so.

Who are you to disagree, unbeliever?

[Democrat Dragon]

89. well there is logical reason behind it

after all religious beliefs are well, beliefs. Not to mention they often very dear and personal to a person. So attacking one's beliefs in a very harsh and crude way is like attacking the person themself personally. Therefore religious beliefs should be respected to level of one's character.

[WI_DEM]

91. No

I think that anybody's religious or non-religious beliefs can be and should be respected.

[Dookus]

93. really?

All beliefs should be respected? The belief that children should be smacked? The belief that the poor get what they deserve? The belief that gays should be quarantined?

I think there are plenty of beliefs out there that deserve no respect.

[onager]

99. I grew up hearing sermons...

...openly advocating racism. Sometimes it was a little more covert, like a homily on "The leopard cannot change his spots."

Those should probably be respected, too.

[Solon]

105. No, that's an example of Assholism...

it hold to no ideological boundaries, nor intellectual quality, nor any known religious values. In that case, those beliefs belong in a garbage bin, along with fascism and other Assholic ideas and beliefs.

[Solon]

103. You are correct Dookus...

I don't like, nor respect the beliefs of let's say the the Church of Jesus Christ Christian(Christian Identity Movement). They hold the belief that the "mud people" aka, non-whites/non-aryans, are decended from Cain, and other such BS. Most mainstream Christians don't respect such beliefs either. The most anyone should be expected to have from strangers is common courtesy until proven you are an asshole, such as spouting the BS I mentioned above. Same thing with more benign religious conversations, if a Christian came up to you and asked what Church you came from, and you say none, then they say you are going to hell, in a very rude way, then they deserve no respect, and deserve to have their asses reamed. However, if they just said "oh" and asked why you are an atheist in a courtesious way, I doubt you would be rude to them in that case.

Treat all people the same, regardless of labels, its only through dialog that someone earns respect. No one deserves something they have yet to prove they should have to begin with. Saying your a Christian, or an Atheist, or even a Wiccan, doesn't mean squat to me. If you are an asshole, or rude, regardless of belief, do you deserve any respect?

[Carni]

107. One word for you *FEAR*

If you attack Ella Fitgerald an Ella Fitzgerald fan doesn't think the sum whole of their time of "being" could end at any given moment and just be a nothing blackness for all enternity.

Most religions feature some kind of afterlife or a return to this plane.

I think questioning a person's religion scares people and makes them hostile - JMO

[Dookus]

108. I think you're probably right n/t

[Inland]

112. You know, that's a really popular one among the atheists

and yet none of the actual believers who post list it at all.

It takes a certain level of arrogance to assert that the anti-belief arguments that occur in DU are really shaking the foundations of belief so much that only a sort of animal flight reaction is possible. I mean, the stuff isn't that good.

It's also completely inconsistent with the fact that the religious are here. Far from running to a safe place, like the republican party, they stay just as they came. Nobody comes to DU for a whole bunch of likeminded religious. That's what church and the right wing is for.

I suggest that the real reason is that the religious aren't expecting special treatment, but fair treatment, or at least, that they not get the easy and ignorant religious "debate" that leaps so easily into DU. One poster suggested that religious beliefs get the same respect as astrology. I think the religious would leap at that deal.

[Dookus]

113. you keep bringing up this silly astrology argument

and I can assure you, the religious would NOT be happy receiving the same respect as astrology.

[Inland]

118. Doesn't matter, since you aren't offering it.

I would include the feeling that religion doesn't have to be actively challenged would be enough respect for the religious here.

It's not much, but you aren't offering it. So it's pretty much a moot point. Too bad. But hey--I hear the demos are building a base among astrologers and practitioners of cupping. Can't wait until 2006.

[Dookus]

121. I'm not offering what?

I have BEGGED you repeatedly to please try to be clear about what you're saying. To be honest, I have no fucking clue what you're going on about. Can you make an effort to explain?

[The Magistrate]

127. You Have Put Your Finger To The Problem Here, Mr. Inland

You feel people should not actively challenge religion, since you say that not doing so would be enough respect for the religious here.

Why do you feel religion should be exempt from active challenge?

[Inland]

138. You mischaracterize my position.

All I want is religion and religious beliefs to stop being singled out as the only thing that needn't be tolerated among DUers.

This is a liberal, democratic political forum. Is discussing religious beliefs part of that? Why, do I become less a democrat or a liberal if I believe a sky fairy created all men equal, instead of something else?

You tell me why whether Jesus is the son of god changes the validity of my positon on social security.

Dollar fell again today. Is anyone asking if there can be an intercession of saints to prop it up?

You see, I can go all day, and would like to go all day, without having people go out of their way to let a christian or two know that they have contempt for their beliefs, just so they know.

All a discussion of religion does is 1) let people frustrated with the religious right get their rocks off smacking around the only christians who give a crap what they thing, and 2) alienate the christians who are good people regardless of whether they want stigmata or not.

But nobody is asking for conversion. Just treat the religious DUers like the astrologers--harmless eccentrics who aren't a threat to our way of life--and let it go. Treat it the same as all the other irrelevancies. Why is that so hard? What did those believing DUers do to you?

[Dookus]

141. Have I mentioned

that astrologers are not attacked daily because they now have a private group where skeptics are forbidden to participate? I thought I mentioned it a few dozen times.

[Inland]

147. Yeah, and it's as irrelevant now as then. It is the fact they

aren't attacked in GD. It isn't forbidden to attack them in GD It can't be because astrology is correct.

There must be something about a DUers religion that makes it more poltically relevant to other DUers than any run of the mill claptrap belief.

That's the point. If you don't get it, please ask someone else.

[Dookus]

150. they're not attacked here with any regularity

because they don't POST here. And there's nothing going on right now in politics regarding astrology.

But I assure you, if astrologers were successfully getting legislation passed and demanding discrimination against Libras, there would be threads here.

[Inland]

159. Of course astrologers post here. All the time.

They just don't post about astrology. They don't have to. They don't get called out on a regular basis. They don't then get the secondary posts telling them that getting called out is something that everyone else gets, as if they can't read as well as being allegedly delusional.

And nobody counts threads regarding legislation, except where they veer off into the expected antiChristian tangent. I've been fairly polite to those who act as if it is relevant that God is a delusion and that christians killed off the native americans every time a fundie wants public funding for faith based organizations, but it's getting too late in the day to continue to pretend that I'm an idiot.

Legislation is used as an excuse to lash out at christians, and because the only christians to listen to the DU smackdown are the liberal democratic ones who only agreed in the first place, it's just another spetacular example of democrats self destructing over the most idiotic of reasons.

And nobody will tell me why it can't be left alone, with the astrologers and the practitioners of cupping.

See you in the loser's circle in 2006.

[Dookus]

163. You're getting tiresome

They don't post here about astrology, because astrology is NOT IN THE NEWS. It's also not generally a political subject, so of course they don't post in GD.

They USED to post in the Meeting Room, where there was constant debate about astrology. Your belief that they are now or were in the past given deference is just mistaken.

Now can we please get off this topic? Astrology has nothing to do with the subject of this thread, and we've already demonstrated repeatedly WHY astrology is not attacked here regularly.

Now... would you care to explain why you belief religious beliefs should be given greater respect than political beliefs?

[AZCat]

142. There are a lot of things not tolerated among DUers.

Homophobia, for example, tends to get a rather rousing response.

Perhaps you want it to also be tolerated? :shrug:

[Inland]

152. Did I mention this is a liberal democratic forum?

So here we are, a liberal democratic forum. By nature, there are a set of beliefs that aren't included. Homophobia is one.

Suddenly, there are plenty who say religion, particularly Christianity, is one of those beliefs not included.

Since it is already established that DU is a liberal democratic forum, it is already established without further discussion what will be tolerated, in the forum, and what won't, at least in the broadest of outlines. If I wanted a different set of ideas tolerated, or wanted to listen to fundamental challenges to those standards, I'd go to a forum without any affiliation.

Therefore what is to be tolerated is liberal democrats. What isn't to be tolerated is religious bigotry. One is us, one isn't. One is DU, one is Hoxha Albania.

[Dookus]

154. but you see

I have never posted that I think all Catholics should be forbidden from practicing their religion, or that they should be arrested, or that they are evil. But I DO with great regularity express disagreement with the church's policies on certain issues, and invariably, when doing so, I am charged with catholic-bashing.

Is it possible for me to express disagreement with the church and its regressive policies without being accused of "bashing"?

Evidence to date says No.

[AZCat]

156. I don't know what Hoxha Albania is.

I disagree with your point that it is already established without further discussion what will and won't be tolerated, even if you claim to be using the broadest of outlines.

We have undergone a changing set of boundaries here at DU and things have moved in and out of that space. One of the engines for such movement is discussion, and I think it is important for us to discuss to what degree religion is protected here. Does it get more "padding" than, say, theories about how the Bush Administration is using high-frequency radio waves to program our minds (and there are those threads out there)?



Edit: removed "accepted" and replaced it with "protected".

[Dunedain]

160. here

A dogmatic Stalinist, Hoxha considered religion a divisive force and undertook an active campaign against religious institutions, despite the virtual absence of religious intolerance in Albanian society.

[AZCat]

161. Ah - many thanks. n/t

[Carni]

180. Oh OK I get it now...

You want the Democrats to start falsely catering to the moral majority types like the GOP does to get elected.

BTW your rants about astrology and bizarre James Baker style of debating is not getting it.

[drummer55]

122. Beliefs and fear

I believe the difference between Religion and Spirituality is fear. The truly spiritual are not afraid to question and not afraid of being questioned because it helps them to define and deepen their faith. The Religious are afraid of questions and do not entertain questions about what makes the shadows on the cave wall.

Most of the anger that comes from these discussions about Christianity and other Religions is the lack of examination of our core beliefs and where they come from. If we have never examined our beliefs, we don't really recognize their impact on our feelings. If someone questions our beliefs, for example, we may get angry. We may mistakenly think that they caused us to get angry by their impertinence. What we don't realize is that we are actually afraid of our belief being shattered.

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM /

[Kat45]

123. They should get the SAME AMOUNT of respect as other beliefs.

Currently on DU, they seem to get less respect (and they often get none.)

[Dookus]

125. You're arguing all beliefs should get the same respect?

The belief that it's right and good to have sex with children should be respected? The belief that blacks are inherently inferior to whites should be respected? The belief that people with HIV should NOT use condoms should be respected?

I disagree.

[Kat45]

131. I was referring to respect on this message board.

I had assumed you were asking the question for the purposes of this board. My apologizes if I assumed incorrectly. It is highly unlikely that the things you mentioned would be stated on this board. We are all progrssives politically on this board (except for the stray freeper).

I guess I'm thinking more in terms of respect for the person with the belief rather than for the belief itself. I just think we should all show respect, or perhaps I should say common courtesy, to each other in our discussions. Each person is deserving of respect, and many folks here, instead of civilly disagreeing with someone, go into attack mode and lay into the person. Yes, direct personal attacks are against the rules, but there are some more indirect personal attacks that survive--even thrive.

[Dookus]

133. well if I post

that I think Joe Lieberman is a helluva good Senator, I would expect plenty of argument and opposition to that view.

Why should religious beliefs NOT receive argument and opposition?

[Kat45]

170. I'm not arguing against argument. I'm arguing for civil argument.

I would expect people to say Lieberman might as well be a republican because of his positions; he's just a DINO, etc.

I would not appreciate people saying that anyone who likes Lieberman has his head up his ass, doesn't have a brain, etc.

The first statement is a civil argument

The second statement is more of a personal insult.

[Dookus]

176. well your examples would

be deleted as personal attacks.

But could one fairly say "Joe Lieberman has his head up his ass?" and not break any rules? I think so. But if I were to say the same about the Pope, I can guarantee 10 alerts would be sent on it.

[mermaid]

128. Because People Have Such A Large Emotional Investment

in their religious beliefs...and since they CANNOT be proven...they don't want anything smacking of trying to DISPROVE them...

Maybe people honestly, in the back of their minds...feel like maybe religion IS a mental disxease.

Let's face it...only religion is taken at face value, by so many people, without a shred of scientific evidence.

No other thing in the WORLD does any rational person accept on face value with not a shred of scientific evidence. religion stands alone in that regard...and so many are very sensitive about any percieved attacks against it.

Just my opinion.

[Dookus]

136. not just religion

I believe things like astrology, homeopathy, etc. are also accepted by many without any shred of evidence. And curiously, when challenged, their adherents get just as defensive as religionists.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

135. No...

But I think everyone's belief structure should be respected. I also think that no one's beliefs are better than any one else's. Also, If you want someone to respect your beliefs, respect everyone else's. Kharma is a good thing. Isn't this common sense, or is that just me?
Duckie

[Dookus]

137. Yet another "all beliefs should be respected" argument

Why is that?

Do you think racism should be respected? Sexism? The belief that children need to be smacked? The belief that humans have dominion over the earth? The belief that women should wear chadors? The belief that god hates fags?

No, there are plenty of beliefs that are not worthy of respect, and I doubt you really feel that way.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

146. I mean within reason.

For Example: If you're atheist, and I'm Catholic, I respect the fact that you don't believe in God, and with that, I expect you to make as much of a non issue of my Catholicism as I have of your Atheism. THAT is what I meant. Sorry I was unclear.
Duckie

[Dookus]

151. but

how can I express opposition to the policies of the Catholic Church without some catholics feigning indignation?

Do I have to accept the policies in order to be polite to you?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

153. Nope...

But you don't have to rude about your opposition. I've seen people be rude as hell about policies of the Catholic Church. I don't agree with their anti Abortion stand, their opinion on Homosexuality, or their stance on Birthcontrol...but I just joined the church. If you go about your opposition in a kind and debate type manor, instead of saying nasty things about the church, as if every one of us agrees with those policies, then I won't be offended.
Duckie

[Dookus]

155. well I understand your desire

but I'm afraid I can't fulfill it. I don't feel the need to be any more polite about regressive policies from Rome than I do about regressive policies from Washington DC.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

157. Then lets avoid it...

And agree to disagree. I have several Republican friends, and we avoid certain topics. I really like and respect you, Dookus, dispite our disagreement on this subject.
Duckie

[Dookus]

167. I like and respect you, too

but why would you be offended if I criticize the Church's policies on public and political issues?

If Republicans made it part of their platform to outlaw birth control, we would have a huge discussion about it here, and nobody would be defending the republicans. But when the Church does it, people get offended when some of us complain. It goes back to my original question - why should religious beliefs be given greater deference than political beliefs?

Can ANY bullshit be cloaked in religion and therefore given a pass?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

177. That's not why I meant.

I wouldn't be offended if you criticize the church's policies...I said as long as you weren't rude about it, we wouldn't have a problem.
Duckie

[Bouncy Ball]

139. Well, I can't help ya.

Wish I could.

"People somehow DEMAND that their religous beliefs, out of all their beliefs, be given special deference. Why is that?"

I have no idea. I don't demand that my religious beliefs be given special deference, so it puzzles me, too.

Sorry!

:shrug: It's a GREAT question, though!

[TankLV]

145. Respect has to be earned. So far, the religious wacko fundies have shown

ANYTHING but respect for any body but themselves.

Hence, I would say that they should be given as much respect as they show others, especially those that they disagree with, and that they, in turn, should be given back EXACTLY what they themselves have given others.

[Kat45]

172. But the Chrisitans on DU have not shown disrespect for the atheists

So going by your statement, the atheists on DU should not show disrespect for the Christians

[Dookus]

174. I think if you look in some of the religious groups

or the religion/theology forum, as well as the old Meeting Room, you'll find a fair amount of disrespect for atheists, skeptics and/or rationalists.

[Carni]

182. Nope wrong--I see threads all the time where Athiests get ripped

Even suggesting that Athiests get flamed, can get a person flamed around here.

I have held up for Wiccans before and I got flamed (again to clarify I am not one) but I feel they have just as much right as the next guy to express their religious beliefs (and yes, I would consider Wicca a religion like any other)

I also don't see how the original post in this thread is offensive to anyone? It's a question--people gave their opinions in response.

Big deal--

[mermaid]

186. Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself! n/t

[barb162]

149. No to your first question. As to your third question, I think

that is due to a rise of intolerance/lack of real education going on in the country for the last few/several years and it is becoming more pronounced all the time. It is a very dangerous trend.

[Donailin]

158. I believe

that every meal should have fresh garlic and extra virgin olive oil (cold pressed). No garlic powder, no lite olive oil.

Virgin.

EXTRA VIRGIN.

Anyone who disagrees with me is an infidel and will burn in hell forever and ever, amen. (emoticon for genuflecting)

[moof]

173. Just wanted to add something and maybe clear up one point.

dookus, the astrology bit seems to spring from this post,
------------------
xpat (182 posts) Tue Mar-29-05 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
61. Religious beliefs deserve as much respects as

belief in astrology and little greenmen. They deserve less respect than belief in unicorns
-----------------

It was assumed here at the moof hut that anyone keeping up with this
thread would take it that xpat was in effect offering to allow religion the same amount of respect as astrology which would be something less than zero. Inland appears to be under a misconception as to the level respect astrology garners with most critical thinkers.

But just to be clear nothing ever gets to the level of respect here at the moof hut until it at least exists.

So anything that does not pass muster on scientific method does not get respect or disrespect, how could it, it simply does not exist.

Many times it is like watching people debate about who would win in a star wars/star trek showdown, interesting but everyone involved
in the thread knows that both groups are fictional , ... right ?

[Dunedain]

175. No

But I'll never understand how mockery has a part in civil discourse.
I don't see this argument as about Christians on this board "demanding" deference.
I see them asking for relief.
It's a trap.
* has been shitting all over Christianity ever since he found it.
It's open season on DU because of the context of his actions.
The door is open for derisive comments because of his association.
Comments which serve no purpose to elucidate the real issue, only a free pass at bigoted behavior.

Call me what you will, I'll only accept that which I believe of myself.

[Festivito]

181. Because the First Amendment says so.

Further, religious beliefs were given this extra respect because of our human nature to adhere to our own beliefs, combined with our inability to effectively reach agreement between adhereants.

Got a better method? Write a better Constitution.

[Dookus]

183. Sorry

the first amendment has nothing to do with discussions on DU, and DU has nothing to do with the government.

The first amendment doesn't in any way guarantee respect for religious beliefs.

[Festivito]

184. Didja hear the DU-Nazi say no DU for U.!

No 1st amendment! No government! No guarantee!

Wait, you didn't ask about a guaranty. You just asked: should it. Well, for the answer you gave me...

No more respect for U!

[Dookus]

185. OK

*backs away slowly*