Spitting on liberal tradition and shooting yourself in the foot. (Part#1)

[LiberalTradition]

An apt description for so much, probably the majority, of posts on this board.

According to the Pew Research Center9the source for all the data provided), here -
http://www.pewtrusts.com/, here -http://www.pewtrusts.com/ideas/ideas_item.cfm?content_item_id=1888&content_type_id=18&page=18&issue=37&
issue_name=Civic%20Life
&name=Public%20Opinion%20Polls%20and%20Survey%20Results, and
here -
http://pewforum.org/publications/surveys/religion.pdf, in 1987-1988 34% of White Evangelical Protestants were Republicans and 31% were Democrats. In 2002-2003 44% of White Evangelical Protestants were Republicans and 23% were Democrats. In 1987-1988 26% of White Catholics were Republican and 41% were Democrats in 2002 - 2003 33% were Republican and 29% were Democrats.

Spend any amount of time on this board and the reason why will quickly become apparent. A NON-LIBERAl and unnecessary cultural battle over religion. The overt and subtle hostility towards religious believers on this MB is shocking. Heaven forbid the religious believer be a Republican or conservative. Most seem to equate such a combination with being a Nazi.

Pay attention, 23% of White Evangelical Protestant are Democrats. Out of White Evangelical Protestants who identify a party, 34% indentify themselves as Democrats. How do you think they would feel if they read many of the characterizations on this board about Evangelical Christians? How long do you think they will stay Democrats?

67% of Americans favor, Providing generous government assitance to the poor. 62% of White Evangelical Protestants with a self identified high level of religious commitment favor, Providing generous government assitance to the poor. 49% agree that, Govt should help more needy people even if it means cuts in other programs. 54% agree that Govt should help more needy people even if it means holding back on future tax cuts. 88% agree that people should help others in need more.

Recently Republican Governor Bob Riley called sought to raise taxes in Alabama. Some of his reasoning, "According to our Christian ethics, we're supposed to love God, love each other and help take care of the poor.".

These are the people that so many on this MB spit on. Please spare me the protests. If the same comments that are made about White Evangelical Republicans like Governor Bob Riley were made about blacks or jews the posts would be banned. Yet on this board, at times, it seems like the contest is to see who can say the worst things about White Evangelical Republicans. That includes Governor Bob Riley.

Here is a clue. Republicans are not evil. Christians are not evil. Republican Christians are not evil. Rich Republican Christians who believe in tax cuts are not evil. Mostly wrong, but not evil.

Part of my credo as a liberal is an affirmation of the universal nature of man. A rejection of tribalism and an affirmation that we are all unique and yet we all share a universal nature. A nature that can be improved upon.

If liberalism now means that I must categorize people into groups and demonize them, I no longer want to be liberal. It doesn't and I am still liberal.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

1. Yawn. Don't you just love being lectured to.

Especially by newbies.

[LiberalTradition]

14. Why do you find losing elections so boring?

I guarantee you that if even 25% of those Catholics and Protestants who switched parties were still Democrats Al Gore would be President and Democrats would be a large majority in both houses of congress.

Apparently, you find that prospect boring.

Not me.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

38. Sorry. Too busy spitting on Liberal Traditions to care.

[Classical_Liberal]

52. and when did Al Gore or any elected Democrat say anything

bad about religion?

[BurtWorm]

15. And this is just part 1, mind you!

:evilfrown:

[lapislzi]

44. Yanno...if you don't like it...you don't gotta read it...

I for one find your comments counterproductive. I think the newbie makes a good point.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

46. Maybe if it was less insulting, I'd be more open to it.

[lapislzi]

61. We insult evangelicals all the time

why is that OK?

I'm guilty of it myself, and he's right. We should stop it, or we are no better than the thing we criticize.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

64. I've never done it and neither have 'the majority of the posts'

If someone wants to start a debate, they should be a little less obnoxious.

[mitchtv]

125. white evangelicals insult me all the time

f* them and the cross they rode in on.

[JackRiddler]

74. I agree but...

This is a dull, condescending post with a basically false assumption at its core: that "Democrats" ever dissed religion, or ever stopped playing the God game alongside the Republicans. Which, of course, no Democrat ever did, even the most secretly atheistic ones running for dogcatcher go through the motions of Sunday mass and professing a personal savior, blah blah.

What the poster is really mad about is all those non-leadership Democrats, or hell just progressives, or hell just secularists of whatever political stripe, who don't show the requisite respect and "tolerance" for the Amazin' Water-Into-Wine And Resurrection Miracle of the One Judeo-Christian-Islamist Sky God etc. etc.

However:

Please don't EVER knock anyone for being a newbie! EVER!

Newbies are what it's all about ... getting thousands and millions of them. We should welcome newbies who show guts and the courage of an authoritative conviction. No one should have to earn spurs before they speak their mind.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

116. Fair enough. Should never knock Newbies

but I'd like people to show some respect for where they're posting when they start. I'm fairly new myself, but DU is three years old, and to criticise DU in General on your first major post by saying we're spitting on liberal tradition is really galling. I'm sorry if I've offended newbies, but I was pretty seriously pissed off.

[Terwilliger]

2. mostly wrong?

that's interesting...

by the way, I don't think anyone is evil...I just think right-wing republicans are deranged nutcases who should not have final say in the lives of so many people

[Terwilliger]

8. there's no hostily, overt or subtle, against Christians

I have big problems with hypocrites, and white-male Christians contain most of the problem in this country.

[TSElliott]

12. How so?

Sorry but that racist comment intrigues me.

[Terwilliger]

are you nutty?

just exactly who's in charge in this country? black female atheists?

Rick Santorum, Tom Delay, George W. Bush...failed white men that believe they've been reborn in the blood of Christ whatever the hell that means acting utterly anti-Christian and making the problems worse for everybody.

Any questions?

[TSElliott]

26. nutty

I just replaced white with black, Hispanic, Asian and it sounded awfully racist to me.

[Terwilliger]

40. you just justified your own hatreds and call me a racist?

White-males are responsible.

Tell me, how many of the thousands of Congresspeople over the time-period of our country have been non-white and/or non-male? Very small percentage. The society that was built over that time period has been focused on the successful continuation of the original concept, which was to take care of the white-male landowners that were the founders of the country. Nothing has changed much. There's been no real intrusion into the power structure by non-whites after all this time (a few females are starting to get some real power).

I'd say white men are responsible.

[TSElliott]

65. So let's just blame every

white male Christian for all the problems because a small minority of them happen to be bad. That type of reasoning is on level of blaming all Arab Muslim's for the actions of a few on September 11th.

[Forkboy]

67. Where did he blame every white male

"white males are responsible" is a true statement.Nowhere does the word "all" appear within that statement.

[TSElliott]

71. So someone is not a racist or a bigot,

as long as they don't use the word "all". I will remember that next time I hear someone say, "gays and blacks are responsible".

[Forkboy]

73. Is something racism

if it's true?

[TSElliott]

76. "If it's true"

Then you should be able to back it up with proof and not just, "I met a white-male Christian one time and I did not like him".

[Forkboy]

80. Not only does that not answer my question

it's not something I said.

Again,is something racism if it's true?

[TSElliott]

84. If your using it to smear or make fun of someone

then yes it's still racism.

[Forkboy]

89. But that's not the case here

"white men are responsible" is a true statement.That's not a smear,it's not making fun...it's the truth.

[TSElliott]

96. It is a smear,

because white men are not responsible, a select few who hold certain ideologies are. Being white or male has nothing to do with the issue; it’s the belief system that is the problem.

[Forkboy]

98. A belief system

that was held by white men.

I have to go soon,so if I don't get back to you my apologies.Thank you for keeping this civil though.

Peace.

[ieoeja]

101. So if black men were in charge.

They would have run the country in a benign manner? Africa must then be a paradise of human compassion.

[Terwilliger]

105. I don't know what black men might have done

it's only been recently in this country that they've been allowed to participate, and they're not really there yet

It's people like you coming up with these strange counter-arguments. You don't think the problems in this country are due to white-males? Anywhere from George Washington to Tom Delay?

[ieoeja]

120. Yes

I KNOW the problems in this country are mostly due to white males. I also KNOW the good things in this country are mostly due to white males. I KNOW both of these facts because "the vast overwhelming majority of" everything in this country, good or bad, has been due to white males.

[BurtWorm]

122. You have time to rephrase that.

It's not very carefully expressed. You have time to edit it so your meaning can't be misconstrued, which I guarantee you it will be, unless you really did mean that white males are responsible for "just about everything in this country," which would include official as well as unofficial history.

[pnb]

82. This again

You make it sound as if the fact that they were white and male is what caused the problem. The PEOPLE caused the problems and most happened to also be white and male.

Do you automatically assume that if they were black and female, everything would have been perfect?

[Forkboy]

92. I dont know about perfect

but it would have been a damn sight better.

[pnb]

93. And that theory is based on what?

n/t

[Forkboy]

109. the fact that it couldn't be done much worse.

[pnb]

114. Very scientific of you

I don't know how I could argue with that...

Of course, you also jump to the conclusion that one would have had to have been better than the other. It could have been merely just as bad.

[Forkboy]

119. Thats me...Dr Science!

[ieoeja]

117. Just look at everywhere white men are NOT in charge.

Have you ever heard of Asians guilty of human rights violations, starting wars, etc? Nope. Disclaimer: this excludes Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Thais, Laotians, Malaysians, Indonesians, Philippinos and any other Asian nation in Asia. Those Asian countries outside Asia have a spotless record.

Have you ever heard of Africans guilty of human rights violations, starting wars, etc? Nope. Disclaimer: this excludes ... well ... all of 'em, even those outside Africa.

Have you ever heard of human rights violations or war in the middle east? Thought not.

Nope, Terwilliger and friends are quite correct. The problem is white men. Eradicating the human race of white males would solve most of the world's problems. Not only do white men cause the problems, but the solutions have inevitably arisen in the non-white portion of the world. Democracy, women's sufferage, civil rights, human rights, the United Nations, you name it. You didn't see white men push for any of this, did you?

[Terwilliger]

103. no, but there's only one set of people to blame at the moment

and white-males are largely responsible for the overall state of the nation

[pnb]

118. Why bring up the fact that they are white male...

...unless you believe the mere fact that they are white and male is the reason the country is at it is?

If you don't believe that then you are merely being inflammatory by even mentionting it in the way you do.

[liberalhistorian]

37. Well, I'm a white female Christian and I can

tell you in all honesty that that was not at all a racist comment he was making, it happens to be the truth. Most black Christians I know are not the hypocritical, judgmental, hate-filled, self-righteous, sanctimonious, arrogant, ignorant, holier-than-thou, repuke nutcases that a lot of white Christian male evangelicals are. And I know enough of them to know the truth in that.

[TSElliott]

59. Oh my...

does anyone else besides me think that this is the most asinine way of reasoning?

This is on level of a Klan member saying, "I met a black man once and I did not like him so all blacks must be bad."

[Terwilliger]

62. you seem to want to avoid reasoning

here we are saying that the white evangelicals are mostly extremists and have been in a position of power to enforce their beliefs, and you say we're using a broad-brush

Once again, just who do you think owns all those huge church complexes strewn about the country?

[TSElliott]

69. Broad-Brush?

Your using a Wagner Power Painter and labeling all white-male Christians as the problems for this country. I guess you just don't realize how racist it sounds.

[Terwilliger]

100. once again....who else could you include?

I'm willing. OK...now, who else is responsible for "partial-birth abortion" legislation...who's responsible for "under god" being in the pledge of allegiance...who's responsible for gays (and many other non-white hetero male groups) getting the shaft when it comes to equal access...

Who?

[TSElliott]

106. Everyone is responsible

because these officials did not elect themselves.

[Forkboy]

113. They were elected

by mostly white men.

[TSElliott]

121. Only 37% of the nation

consists of White Males the other 63% still helped to elect these officials.

[Terwilliger]

115. do you know any history?

or do you just expect that people should take your statements at face value?

so the millions of blacks who were slaves elected people they wanted to be in government? how about women before 1920?

How about the fact that, today, you have to have scads and scads of money to even participate in the electoral system?

"these officials did not elect themselves" SHEESH!

[TSElliott]

124. Of course I know history,

But I did not realize you were just implying that the white-males of the past were the issue. Man I feel foolish, I am glad to hear that you are not blaming the white-males of today.

[liberalhistorian]

75. Oh, come on, I didn't say

ALL, I said A LOT OF. There's a big difference. Just like there are A LOT OF women who don't support abortion rights (but not ALL) and there are A LOT OF conservative African-Americans (but not ALL). I didn't say that I automatically assume a white male Christian is going to be a repuke fundie, either.

[LiberalTradition]

20. Hysterical! Claim no hostility right before you rip an entire

group of people.

Substitute black for white-male Christians and listen to yourself.

[Terwilliger]

31. I listen carefully

you should too...if you don't think white-male Christians are responsible...could you tell me who is?

Hmm...could it be....SATAN?!?!?!?!?

[TSElliott]

39. Wow,

Did you go to the David Duke school of reasoning?

[Terwilliger]

43. No, but I lived an extended part of my life around people like him

and they're self-interested nutcases

[CatWoman]

50. bwahahahahaha

[liberalhistorian]

25. Amen to that,

brother! And, as I said below, as a Christian I'm thoroughly disgusted with how my religion is being twisted and taken over by these repuke hypocritical nutballs.

[maddezmom]

3. question from a newbie

What does MB refer to?

[dwckabal]

4. MB=message board

[maddezmom]

6. Thanks

I guess I was looking for something more.

[Terwilliger]

5. message board

is my guess

[Lars39]

7. How do I think they'd feel?

If they're Southern Bapts, at some point they need to shit or get off the pot. They need to come to grips with what their convention supports and find themselves another church or take it back. I'm tired of these whiny posts about evangelicals. They need an education about what their glorious leaders are doing. They need to quit ignoring what their leadership stands for, and pull their heads out of their asses.

[Don Claybrook]

9. Evangelical Liberals, huh?

Well and good, if they really are liberals, which baffles the mind. But anyone who wants to change the definition of liberalism to incorporate stereotypical fundamentalist-Christian hatred can back the fuck up. I won't put up with the hatred these people spew nor with their amplification of differences, which amounts to hate, and fear. Surely you must be referring to some different group than I am. Right?

[LiberalTradition]

28. I clearly expressed my objections to policies aimed at

shoving a particualr form of religion(or any) down peoples throats.
See my last paragraph.

Roughly one third of White Evangelical Christians who indentify a poltical party identify themselves as Democrats.

So when you say these people make it clear you mean people who want to shove religion down your throat, not White Evangelical Christians as a group.

[Brucey]

10. I don't know what a "universal nature of man" is.

Are you talking about anthropology? Human nature? Yes, you are right that it is not good manners to criticize people. Hitler and Nixon were good men, part of human nature. However, it is the nature of this board to criticize, even make fun of, people and beliefs that we consider harmful and destructive. If we are wrong, we try to work it out. But those who find the fire too hot should stay out of the kitchen. I am happy to discuss these issues, and will respond to more posts. I am interested in discussing human nature (scientifically though, not religious beliefs), and discussing how we can get people with wrong beliefs to see the truth (including me when it applies). I have learned a lot from DU and want to learn more.

[arcane1]

11. yay, another lecture! I was hoping someone would frame the debate

I LOVE blanket criticism from newbies! Welcome to DU! :hi:

ps- here is a clue for YOU: Republicans who kill people and steal their property are goddamned evil bastards

[LiberalTradition]

33. Here is a clue for you - Democrats who kill people and steal

their property are goddamned evil bastards.

Anyone who kill people and steal their property needs to be thrown in jail.

[librechik]

48. I can name six prominent Republicans who kill and steal

and those are in the current administration.

can you name an equal # of prominent Democrats who kill and steal? Don't forget, we Dems are wussy soft-on-terror peacenik treehuggers who wouldn't kill a snaildarter...

I doubt your claims of liberalism. We see your kind here all the time.

[Terwilliger]

58. that sounds like something specific

at least, saying something like that, I'd think you'd want to explain yourself...

Killing and stealing? Who did that? What Democrat did that?

[info being]

13. How are rational people supposed to limit their rationality...

just to be sensitive to those carrying around archaic delusions. How are Progressives supposed to support the most regressive belief system in existance?

[PVnRT]

19. OK

So us idiots who are beneath you, suffering from mental disorders, can't be progressives? But I bet I'm supposed to be sensitive to you, right? Must be nice wanting to have it both ways.

[info being]

23. Nah...I wouldn't expect sensitivity from a Christian

We're all free to do and say whatever we wish.

I didn't say you have mental disorders, just that you cling to a regressive and archaic belief system founded mostly on lies.

The only rational religion is Agnosticism...the idea that we cannot know what is unknowable and therefore there's no reason to even try.

[LiberalTradition]

41. We don't need a year zero. Religious beliefs have been

rapidly evolving. Both Pew and Gallup polls indicate that while deeply religious the large majority of Americans believe that there are many legitimate faiths.

About 1/2 of White Evangelical Christians share this basic view.

Rational progressive don't demonize entire groups of people just because they hold some archaic delusions.

[mopinko]

16. here's my problem with your premise

it is not the average christian that is the problem. i have seen many, many religious at peace rallies, and know that many are the compassionate, non-judgemental people that jesus told them to be. it is the hypocrites of the religious right that are the problem. ordinary power hungry little dictators hiding behind the bible. and hoodwinking people trying to be moral, getting them to vote AGAINST people who share their compassion by making an issue of abortion. if these people would think their votes through, they would NOT vote rethug. so, what conclusion are we to draw of their intellegence if they cannot see through such b.s.??

[RandomUser]

27. His premise is correct, but so is your assessment.

His premise is right that open antagonism to religious people will only serve to antagonize the ones who aren't republicans and drive them into that party.

Your assessment of how the GOP leadership has been hoodwinking the less radical religious people is right. But calling those people stupid won't make them see the light, but rather make them defenseive and set them more firmly against you. Think of it this way, if you were hoodwinked and someone called you stupid and denigrated you, how would you feel? Would you feel more charitable to them and likely to listen?

We need to isolate our attacks and direct them at the hoodwinkers, the moral dictators hiding behind bibles and hoodwinking the masses. And we need to make a distinction between attacking the idiots cloaking themselves in religion and the religious people who have been hoodwinked. When you fail to make that distinction, your attacks can end up doing more harm than good.

[info being]

34. The problem is, you can't get through to someone...

who clings to "faith." They also have faith in power...they "just gotta believe" that our government is doing the right thing. It's symptomatic.

These people don't want truth. If they did, they wouldn't cling to faith.

[liberalhistorian]

49. Excuse me, but I happen to be a

Christian who does NOT have "faith in power", and who does NOT "just gotta believe that our government is doing the right thing." Don't assume that all Christians are the fundie nutball repuke types.

[info being]

29. Exactly...it is THEIR responsibility to

vote responsibly. However, if they vote the "warm fuzzy" vote instead of the responsible one...what does that say about their intelligence.

[mopinko]

42. and how smart do you have to be,

or how moral, to see through the b.s. they still worship st. ronnie. why? because he was so jesus-like? no, because he cut their taxes. they are hypocrites themselves if they are both rethug and christian.

[LiberalTradition]

54. Correlating intelligence with voting Democratic is flat out silly.

Here is an idea. Send abortion back to the states.

As you note, with abortion out of the way, many Christians who more closely share Democratic views regarding social programs would then be free to vote Democratic at the national level.

That is just one idea and not even an idea that I am necessarily endorsing.(Just for the record I don't endorse it)

I am certain that you could come with other ideas that might do the trick.

But concluding that voters who don't vote with us are idiots is not a good idea or strategy.

[mopinko]

63. not correlating intellegence with voting dem

correlating intelligence with not being able to tell someone is a total hypocrite.

[RandomUser]

17. Well said

I'm agnostic, but I've seen DU'ers here who say they're deeply religious and that their faith is no one's business.

Like any group, you'll find diverse and contradictory opinions here. I think you're right. Deeply religious people are not all evil or venomous haters. It's just the ones who are radical republicans who give the rest of them a bad name. But you're right, we shouldn't label all of them that way. It would be unfair and inaccurate.

Some radical fundamentalist Republicans give other religious people a bad name. Just like how the religion haters on DU may give DU'ers a bad name (you'll probably see some of them on this thread). But they're hardly indicative of all who are of that stripe.

I believe one can be deeply religious and still respect separation of Church and State.

I'm agnostic, but that doesn't mean I hate deeply religious people.

[LiberalTradition]

60. Thanks. NT.

NT.

[William Seger]

18. This is a liberal country...

... and a very religious country, so there's certainly nothing unusual about religious liberals.

And it seems to me that you are stereotyping "liberals" here based on right-wing propaganda, not at all on "much, probably the majority, of posts on this board."

What is objected to strongly here is not religion, but using religion as a political club. The recent "controversy" about the "ten commandments judge" is a perfect example, as is school prayer and teaching creationism in science classes.

Sorry, but I think you're trolling.

[LiberalTradition]

66. I have already seen posts like

Terwilliger's post that doesn't help prove your point. But the last two responses I have read including yours are helping prove your point.

I see too many rich Christians ruining this country comments. That type of lazy nasty short hand is counter productive.

[BurtWorm]

79. If your aim was to stir things up, you succeeded.

If it was to create a forum for rational discussion and respectful debate on the subject, you failed. Maybe you'll be more careful with part 2.

[liberalhistorian]

81. Well, I'm sorry but the truth hurts.

Rich "Christians" (and believe me, they are NOT the type of Christian Christ would recognize), are, indeed, ruining this country. NOT ALL OF THEM. AND NOT EVERY SINGLE RICH CHRISTIAN IS AUTOMATICALLY BAD. See the difference?

[William Seger]

83. Excuse me, but you said...

... "much, probably the majority, of posts on this board" dealt with religion bashing. I claim that from what I've seen here, for the vast majority of DUers at least, the problem is not with religion or religious people but with people who use religion as a political club. How, precisely, does Terwilliger's post prove your point and refute mine?

[dwckabal]

21. Methinks thou dost protest too much...

If you think Christians get the short end of the stick, try being an athiest.

If a Christian truly cared about and believed the teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the Bible that person would never even consider being a Republican, because Republicans do NOT care about the poor, homeless, or less fortunate. They only care about themselves. If people are poor, it is their own fault. Why should the government support them?

Do you think George Bush would ever wash the feet of someone who just got fired from their job because the economy is in the shitter?

Would Pat Robertson associate with homosexuals? More likely, he would scream at them that they were going to burn in hell.

Would Alabama Governor Bob Riley stand up before the execution of someone on death row and challenge anyone without sin to throw the switch?

Until Republicans can show that they actually care about anything but themselves, Christians should shun them like the biblical plague.

[LiberalTradition]

70. Try being an atheist? I am an atheist.

Jesus Christ told each of us to be generous.

He did not tell each of us to take someone else's money and give it to the poor. He told each of us to give to the poor.

Many liberterians honestly believe that eliminating the federal government would benefit the poor. They are wrong. But that does not mean they do NOT care.

[liberalhistorian]

22. I'm a liberal Christian and I take exception

to your premise that religious believers are disdained on DU. I have NEVER had ANY negative reaction to my religious beliefs on here, even from agnostics and atheists who respect my right to my beliefs as I respect theirs.

And that's the key, RESPECT. You cannot come on here shoving your religious beliefs down everyone's throat demanding that they follow your beliefs or they're not "true Americans." This is what the so-called evangelical "Christians" do, with their hate-filled, judgmental, ignorant, hypocritical, bigoted, arrogant, self-righteous, holier-than-thou medieval-age bullshit that's twisting Christianity into something Christ himself would not recognize. It's people who do that on here that are disdained and scorned, and rightfully so.

But my own experience has been that my religious beliefs are respected, and the right to them recognized, because I recognize everyone else's religious choices, or non-choices in the case of agnostics and atheists. But we don't need self-righteous lectures from people who don't understand that that's the difference.

[wryter2000]

35. I sure respect your religious views

As a former Episcopalian, I have tremendous respect for people of faith. Evil has been done in the name of all religions, but for the most part all faiths are incredible forces for good. If you mean by "Evangelicals" people like Pat Robertson, James Falwell, and James Dobson, yes, I despise them. The Jesus I was raised to love would have tossed them out of the temple.

[LiberalTradition]

72. I am an atheist. Maybe you don't see what you don't want to see

and you see what you want to see.

That would explain your response.

[liberalhistorian]

87. Um, not to brag or anything, but I think I've been on here a helluva

lot longer than you, since I have over 4,000 posts. So I think I'm a bit more qualified to express an opinion on what goes on here on the MB's.

[LiberalTradition]

94. And yet during this discussion you have already seen one

imaginary figure.

Why is it not possible that you have not seen 4000 others?

[liberalhistorian]

104. HUH?

Could you explain what you meant, please?

[LiberalTradition]

126. You already imagined that I -

'You cannot come on here shoving your religious beliefs down everyone's throat demanding that they follow your beliefs or they're not "true Americans.'

I am an atheist. Now if you twist fast enough you might be able to claim that you were not specifically referring to me.

You imagined that I was religious. I am not. I am an atheist. How many other things do you imagine you see that aren't there?

[Terwilliger]

112. an atheist, huh?

so all this other stuff is lies?

[enki23]

24. jesus christ

christians aren't going republican because some small percentage of liberals are atheist. people, christian or not, go republican because republicans give them the policies and the rhetoric they want. people who want republican policies, and who feel moved by republican rhetoric, are fucking idiots. it's hardly atheists' fault that an increasing percentage of christians are fucking idiots.

[Terwilliger]

45. YEEAH

BOYEEEE!

[Forkboy]

55. Post of the day!!!!!

:thumbsup:

[liberalhistorian]

57. LOL!

Well-said!

[Kinkistyle]

30. Believe in Zeus for all I care.

I don't give a poop what a person believes in, but I do care about what they try to impose on me and other based on their beliefs.

Please point out to me the Evangelical Christians (black, white or other) who don't have a problem with equal rights for homosexuals and the teaching of evolution in public schools, and you might change my opinion about them.

[liberalhistorian]

32. "Rich Republican Christians who believe in tax cuts

are not evil?" The hell they aren't, and as a Christian, I know that to be a fact. Such people don't give a damn about anything and anyone else except themselves and making money. They are no more Christians than walking into McDonald's makes you a hamburger. Believe me, I've known more than enough of them to know the truth in that, there are plenty of them in my own church who never contribute a damn thing to anything and who are always whining about our missions outreaches and the money they're costing.

[LiberalTradition]

78. Not giving is not very Christian. Voting for a tax cut has nothing

to with being a Christian.

Jesus told each of us to give. He did not tell each of us to take someone else's money and give it to the poor.

I would argue that he was more concerned about our souls than he was about the material well being of the poor.

[liberalhistorian]

91. The material well-being of the poor was

one of his, if not his "sole" (if you'll pardon the pun!) concerns! Over and over and over and over and over and over again in the New Testament we are commanded to take care of the poor and the helpless, that the poor were of great concern to God, that he who does not heed the plight of the poor and the helpless and the needy is not worthy of God, that the disciples themselves were basically homeless. In fact, early Christianity was very communal, much as American Christians shudder to think of it.

[LiberalTradition]

102. Jesus was not concerned with the corporal/secular he was concerned with

with your soul.(IMO)

Again he told each of us to give to the poor. He did not tell each of us to take someone else's things and give them to the poor.

He told us to give to each other not so that our material well being would improve. But because spiritually it is the correct thing to do.

[Terwilliger]

110. oh my...do you all dance on the head of a pin?

I think Christ's ministrations were eminently clear, and American conservatism (white-male based, you must agree) is all about stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. Is that something Christ would approve of?

"someone else's things" - is this why you call yourself liberal "tradition"?

[truthspeaker]

36. granted I've only been on this board a week

But I have seen NOT ONE ATTACK on religion.

That's right, zero.

A prohibition on bashing religion was even in the rules I agreed to when I signed up.

However I do reserve the right to bash the following groups of people:

- Anti-choicers

- Gay-bashers

- People opposed to womens' rights

- People who think the West Bank belongs to Israel because the Bible says so

- Creationists

- People who want to use government money to shove their religious symbols down my throat.

But none of that qualifies as bashing religion.

[Terwilliger]

56. you'd be surprised

But let's get down to brass-tacks...the things you listed above wouldn't be a problem if so many believers weren't interested in asserting their beliefs as rule of law.

[Classical_Liberal]

47. Since when did you spend any time on this board

Yes this board has some over the top anti religious people but you never encounter them in real life, and most aren't even democrats. They are greens, or left independents or third party. The christian coalition and the televangelists are the reason we lost those voters.

[JNelson6563]

51. Seeing as I have no liberal traditions

or any other kind of traditions, I can't say this post speaks to me. There is a lot of hostility on all the hot button topics, no doubt about that.

I don't apply any label to myself, never have. I prefer to take it an issue at a time. Interestingly enough when I take those poliical compass tests I find myself almost left of Ghandi (haha) but I still hold no label.

Religion is an emotional topic. Self-righteousness is indulged in by both sides of the argument. I think it should for the most part be avoided on this forum about politics.

As to the groups you seem so concerned about for the criticism they receive, that would leave me to believe you are not a Christian? The hard core fundamentalists are not trying to make the world a better place as Jesus of the bible urged his followers to do. They spread misery and hate. I should think those who try to follow the message of love one another and don't judge and what other positive slices one can draw from the bible would be outraged at the zealots represetning them.

IMO as long as religion exists it will serve as an effective divider. This world of ours will never progress to its true potential as long as it exists. It's as helpful a tool to hate-mongers as skin color.

Good of youto come to the defense of tose who would consider me, one who does not believe in any god, a "godless sub-human". Of course this sort of attitude they apply to anyone with the remotest difference with them in belief systems.

Closed-minded, fear-based hate is something I thought I'd never see defended here.

Julie

[msmcghee]

53. Before you get your panties in a wad . .

. . most liberals I know have no axe to grind with Christians or any theists. Most of us are quite happy to let you use your 1st Amendment rights to tell us why we should become believers. It happens to me all the time.

What we do get upset about is mixing your God with our government.

I know your faith is a big deal for you. That's cool.

My freedom (from) religion is a very big deal for me. Anybody who threatens that - in any way - is my enemy and is on my shitlist. Most of the animosity you see from non-believers here is due to religionists not respecting that line of separation - or not making their respect for that separation, clear.

To make allies here - just be specific about your respect for the separation of church and state - and no-one will misunderstand. But from the tone of your post I'm guessing you're more interested in defending your faith from the heathens - than making allies.

Remember that at this time that separation thing is under attack - by RW Christian zealots. If you don't want to be mistaken for one of those then make it clear that you are not one of them. Otherwise, expect some rough treatment from time to time from people defending what many of us see as a critical right of citizenship.

i.e. keep your God out of my government and we'll get along just fine.

}(

[liberalhistorian]

99. Why, you godless commie you!

You godless, un-American, unpatriotic, hell-bound god-hater! You, you, you, SECULAR HUMANIST!!!!

Sorry, couldn't resist it, lol! Very well said, in fact, "Keep your God out of my government" would make a great slogan. I've left churches in the past because they were too focused on shoving their beliefs down everyone else's throat and trying to pass laws legislating their "morals" and beliefs they wanted everyone else to follow whether they were religious or not.

[msmcghee]

127. Had me going there. LOL

But actually - I sometimes really want to tell my Christian friends that even though I'm an atheist, I really do love you guys. I respect anyone who is serious about morality and ethics - and cares enough about their lives to worry that they make the right choices.

In most cases, whether your ethics are derived from a formal belief system or, as in my case, what I consider common sense ways to make life better for everyone while we're here - we're all pretty good people here on the left.

But it doesn't take much of those attempts to insert someone's religion into our government - to destroy those good feelings on my part.

Glad to see you are not in that zone - as I'm sure most Christians here are not.

Cheers

[SemperEadem]

68. Christians who serve mammon before Jesus are the problem

Not Christians who are sincerely following in Jesus' footsteps.

Your argument is non sequitur.

[LiberalTradition]

85. Non-sequitor? My original post doesn't logical follow what? NT.

NT.

[Scott Lee]

77. I admire your attempt, but when you denigrate tribalism....

You betray not only your ignorance of what tribalism is, you have contradicted yourself. Let me demonstrate:

A rejection of tribalism and an affirmation that we are all unique and yet we all share a universal nature. A nature that can be improved upon.

Tribalism IS about uniqueness. You can't reject what you seek to affirm. This is the problem I have with "melting pot" liberalism, which loses because in it's act of melting, it destroys the uniqueness of human's individual cultures.

I seek more of the "Ejido" concept in our future. The Ejido is the idea of the collective farm, which was and is central to the Zapatista movement. It basically says, let the land go back to the Indigenous ones it was taken from, and let them use and farm it for the benefit of all in their region. It's a unique form of quasi-socialist/tribalist society that may well be the model for the future as resources dwindle and populations increase.

Also, just for your information, a growing number of American leftists/liberals are Pagan (like myself) who may not share your vision of a universal Christian community. Be aware that demographics are changing in amazing ways, very quickly.

[LiberalTradition]

90. Parlor room tricks don't impress me.

Light is matter and energy.

We are each unique and yet at our core we are the same.

[sweetheart]

86. separate church and state

The economist 8 nov 2003: "In the 2000 election, 63% of those who went to church more than once a week voted for *; 61% of those who never went voted for President Gore. About 70% of those who said abortion should always be available voted for Mr. Gore; 74% of those who said it should always be illegal voted for *.

Given that this is the liberal message board, why is religion relevant at all? I don't deride religion or christianity at all... to use a * phrase: It is irrelevant. That is what separation of church and state teaches us... to keep it irrelevant.

You are wrong to chastize this board community with that... beat up someone who uses religion to make an argument... but in reading 1000's upon 1000's of posts on this board, i see little to no use of religion as a basis for opinion... we're pretty secular round these parts in our politics no matter what DU'ers are doing in the bedroom or in their private beliefs about life.

The majority of americans are not religious... if we simply focus on getting election turnout, rather than on stupid ideology theory, we'll win.

[BurtWorm]

88. Was there another way you could have broached this subject

that wouldn't have resulted in all this gas and smoke?

[LoneStarLiberal]

95. We No Longer Own The Message

Unfortunately this gets at the problem that we no longer own the message for the end result of Christianity.

Our message of tolerance, inclusion, love, and compassion has been effectively eliminated by some weird Americanized hybrid of Old Testament punishment with New Testament selective love and compassion for those in the in group only.

[truthspeaker]

97. instead of putting words in our mouth

and then condemning us for what you claim we say (without giving any examples), I suggest you give us some examples of the attacks you claim we are making so we can discuss them.

[LiberalTradition]

108. Ok.

See Skittle's thread (paraphrase) What do they teach in church? Not an overt example but a decent example.

Despite the denial, the conclusion is clear, non-religious Skittles cares, religious folk don't.

Or see some of the responses to this thread.

[LiberalTradition]

129. You can alse reference info being's reply.

liberalhistorian seemed to take exception.

[MadHound]

107. A word to the wise LT

Using broad brush arguements to protest and argue against broad brush arguements is not the way to go about making your point.
In other words saying that "probably the majority of posts on this board" is counterproductive(have you actually done a post count? Have you done your statistical homework to back this up?) and hypocritical(demonizing people for doing the very act you are commiting yourself). Not good form, much less a logical arguement.

And the last line in your post is a real laugher: "If liberalism now means that I must categorize people into groups and demonize them, I no longer want to be liberal." But didn't you categorize all(excuse me, "probably the majority") of us as being Christian bashers? Didn't you just demonize us for doing such? So that logically leads you to being. . . . ?

Look bub, you don't know me, I don't know how long you have been lurking around here. But if you will go back and do your RESEARCH, you will find that I have never, ever bashed anybody over their religion. In fact I would bet dollars to doughnuts that you wouldn't find even a large minority, much less a majority of the posters here bash Christians. Yes, we go on about pro-lifers, the creeping theocracy in our country, folk who violate the church/state seperation clause of our Constitution, and such like. But these are political issues which happen to be supported by one Christian sect or another. And if you hadn't noticed, this is a political board.
So if you don't like this you have two options. One, grow a thicker skin(in fact I think this is mentioned in the rules somewhere), or two, leave and find a board more to your liking. Just don't expect this one to change because you, as a newbie, are offended. You haven't done your research, your arguement is illogical and hypocritical, and your tone is condesending and combative. Not a real good foot to get off on around here.

But hey, Welcome to DU:toast:

[BurtWorm]

111. Well said!

Now that's the liberal tradition!

:toast:

[LiberalTradition]

123. Well said? Maybe. But poorly reasoned. More jousting with strawmen.

Spitting on liberal tradition and shooting yourself in the foot. (Part#1)

An apt description for so much, probably the majority, of posts on this board.

That doesn't mean the majority of posts on this board are anti-religion or bash religion.

How could they be? Most post on this board aren't even about religion.

It means the majority of posts on this board violate liberal traditions. For instance any post that mentions Bush or Republicans.

So the answer to your non question, 'But didn't you categorize all(excuse me, "probably the majority") of us as being Christian bashers? Didn't you just demonize us for doing such? So that logically leads you to being. . . . ?', is no I didn't bash or demonize the majority of posters on this board as being anti-Christian, that is just the conclusion you reached by engaging in a bit of creative reading.

Part#1 was about posts that do bash Christians. Just one example.

Agian the assertion is that, probably the majority, of posts on this board violate liberal traditions.

So no you didn't offend me, you didn't understand me. And that burnt odor you smell isn't coming from me.

[Skinner]

128. I'm locking this thread.

It's inflammatory. Broad brush smear against the vast majority of our members.

I'm not really sure what the point of this is. If you find DU so distasteful, I am puzzled as to why you are here.

Skinner
DU Admin