What's the balance between intolerance and aquiesence when dealing with Christofascist bullsh*t??

[NoodleyAppendage]

At what point or to what extent can those of reason push back against the onslaught of religion-based intolerance, christofascist doctrine, and scientific and political encroachment by religion? Do we run the risk of being overrun and dominated by being reasonable with the fundamentalists? Would intolerance of their kind be socially adaptive (in the long run) for our species? And, if so, what can we do to actively make this change happen?

I guess what I'm asking at the root of these questions is, "is religion adaptive or maladaptive for our species' survival?"

J

[AmandaRuth]

1. personally, I think it is totally appropriate to ask

if a candidate such as the huckster believes in the end times philosophy or "the rapture", considering all of us unsaved types are going to be tortured and killed in that scenario. I always wonder why it is not being brought up, as the rapture types believe that the US must be in Iraq as a step forward to the end of the world.

[Jim__]

2. My best guess would be that since religion is so widespread, it is either

adaptive for our species survival, or, a side-effect of an adaptive feature. However, knowledge and learning are also beneficial to survival. My bet would be that if religion and knowledge come into conflict, knowledge and learning will win out. Societies that refuse to learn because it violates religious beliefs will lose out.

[EVDebs]

3. Evangelicals are now going 'green'

and many already are progressives. However, the origins of the Left Behind novel's "eschatology" (view of end-times) is fascinating and worth looking into

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=226&topic_id=2180#2184

Also read Gary Bauer, PhD's article (Wheaton College prof, not the GOP candidate)

Christian Zionism, Evangelicals and Israel
http://www.christianzionism.org/Article/Burge01.asp

Some really DO get message but sadly most of the seminaries are pushing an errant reading of scripture in Protestant circles.

[undeterred]

4. A lot of these arguments over creation/evolution

were had in the 19th century. They keep coming back under new guises under different sets of social cirucumstances- eugenics, whatever.

I think that religion itself is a neutral vehicle, just as technology is a neutral vehicle. We have to stick to the reasonable arguments and educate people who are willing to learn the truth. There have always been reasonable strands of religion. The ones who don't listen have a political agenda anyway.

[Arugula Latte]

5. There must be a powerful streak in people to get simplistic, irrational explanations

They don't want to grapple with difficult issues; they don't want to even consider the possibility that we are just here on this planet and we will die one day and that will be it; they want to be told what to think; they elevate "Faith" as something to be respected above all when in reality it's just a glorification of irrational thought and mythology over facts, reason and science.

I don't know what the answer is; the mainstream embrace of religion (Shhh! You can't say anything or you'll OFFEND people of FAITH!") legitimizes the entire thing.

[NoodleyAppendage]

6. Right. I guess what I'm wonder is...should we be more proactive and OFFEND?

Seems like we could hasten things by making religious fundamentalism a socially ostrasized condition.

J

[Arugula Latte]

8. It used to be that way ... Remember the 70s?

Then that dumbass snake oil salesman Reagan came into office and it seemed to me like the entire country lost its mind overnight. What happened, I guess, was that Reagan encouraged the fundies to crawl out from under their rocks. They have since then gained a disproportionate amount of power.

We need to embarrass these people to crawl back under their rocks and shut the hell up.

[EVDebs]

7. The 'authoritarian' mind bent as seen in the Milgram Experiment's 'shockers'

Milgram Experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

""The Milgram experiment was a seminal series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. Milgram first described his research in 1963 in an article published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,<1> and later discussed his findings in greater depth in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.<2>

The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised the experiments to answer this question: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"<3>

Milgram summarized the experiment in his 1974 article, "The Perils of Obedience"...""

Conflicts mightily with Micah 6 : 7-8, Leviticus 19 : 18 and 'The Greatest Commandment' Luke 10 : 25-37

That God would require us to think deeply seems offensive to some. Also, you've got to be literate and a comprehending reader. Rare these daze.

[undeterred]

13. Not all religion is authoritarian.

Christian fundamentalism is extremely authoritarian. Quakers have silent worship as a community without a minister- it is utterly non-authoritarian, and guess who the government is most afraid of. You can control the people who are afraid of a visible authority, not the ones who have a highly developed inward conscience. I think religion is very much like politics in this sense- there are people who do exactly what the Party (capital P) tells them to and others who see the party as a vehicle for their own internal values.

The question is- how do you get people to change? You have to convince them that these simple black and white answers don't work. I think the fact that the whole country is going to turn away from the Republican party (which is going to continue to spew the same simplistic bullshit) is evidence of a little bit of learning. We have to show that the leaders we have are every bit as "moral" as theirs, in fact more so.

We have to out-value their values, not tear them down. I don't expect it would do much good to tear down Christian fundamentalism, just make room for it. There was a "Jesus movement" in the seventies, but I don't remember Carter or Ford having to talk about it. All the Republican nominees are so flawed that its not going to be hard to pierce a few holes in their "moral authority".

[Didereaux]

9. sadly you CANNOT show any tolerance a zealot! Reasonable Zealot is oxymoron

[aquart]

12. So true. And one I plan to remember.

[aquart]

10. We're wired for religion. You're not getting rid of it.

It's a result of our associative brain functions. It's why we can see the Virgin in a piece of French toast.

So it doesn't matter if it helps or hurts, it's part of us.

[jpgray]

14. We're wired to fill in gaps. The fewer gaps, the less hocus-pocus

I mean, you don't argue we're wired to worship a neolithic sun god, or Jupiter, right? As our scope of observation increases, the Semitic gods will be largely swallowed up as well in favor of something more relevant. :) Who knows what crazyass religious views people will have at that time? It will be interesting to see.

[LostInAnomie]

11. My own personal opinion is that if the "faithful" choose to live in...

... their own self imposed codes of conduct based on what their faith tells them, that's fine. More power to them.

Once they cross into using their "faith" as a platform to force social, political, educational, scientific, etc., changes on society as a whole, they deserve to be smacked down. We should not be afraid to call their bullshit what it is when they tread into realms where legends carry no weight. Media institutions, if their interest is truly to serve the best interest of the public, should not seek to protect the delicate sensibilities of a rampaging horde seeking cultural hegemony.