OMG:
For the past five months, White House aides and friends of the Obamas have been quietly visiting local churches and vetting the sermons of prospective first ministers in a search for a new — and uncontroversial — church home. Obama has even sampled a few himself, attending services at 19th Street Baptist on the weekend before his inauguration and celebrating Easter at St. John’s Episcopal Church.
Now, in an unexpected move, Obama has told White House aides that instead of joining a congregation in Washington, D.C., he will follow in George W. Bush’s footsteps and make his primary place of worship Evergreen Chapel, the nondenominational church at Camp David.
Should have voted for Hillary!
gg
Awright, I can handle this, but if he buys Bush’s former ranch so that he can work on his brush-clearing skills, I’m jumping off a tall bridge…
Rey
I’m sure this is a slap in the face to somebody and this has got to be good news for John McCain- also.
Punchy
“Vetting the sermons”? AYFKM? Now a politician needs a trial run from the man of cloth before he decides whether or not that pastor may sink his career?
Wow.
4tehlulz
ZOMG MUSLIN
JK
I’m deeply disappointed to read this. I had hoped that Obama would come out of the closet and declare himself to be an atheist. I would love to see an atheist in the White House to break the backs and the hearts of the religious right. As exhilarating as it felt on Election Day to finally see an African American ascend to the presidency, I’d feel equally electrified if we could elect an atheist president.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Obama just threw God under the bus.
America is doomed.
SenyorDave
Since the only news out there is a possible revolution in Iran, two wars, health care reform battles, a huge recession, climate change legislation, obviously Barack Hussein Obama’s choice of a place to worship will immediately jump to the top of the news cycle.
A huge opportunity for Romeny, Palin, Pawlenty, Huckabee, et. al.
Rey
@Punchy
only if the politician is named Barack Hussein Obama with a mixed racial background, a black wife and two black kids and wants to become President of the USA. Just sayin’…
Comrade Stuck
If we see Obama clearing brush off the south lawn, we will know the pod has blossomed.
Zifnab25
Yeah, not to rain on your parade, but I think it is highly unlikely that Obama is an atheist. There is some wiggle room between “believes in nebulous concept of god while adhering to church mandated personal ethics code” and “poop flinging evangelical screacher monkey”.
I honestly don’t think Obama doesn’t believe in a higher power.
geg6
That sounds like my church, the Church of Geg’s Cozy Bed or Alternatively, My John’s Cozy Bed. The sermons that Henry gives there are pretty damn good for a Labrador retriever.
Aaron
I find non-denominational (Unitarian?) churches to be pretty reasonable. They are not so much for fire and brimstone, and more about treating people nicely – all under a nebulous god-concept.
That being said, I am guessing this will drive right-wingers crazy
Adrienne
@JK: Obama is CLEARLY not an atheist so why would you be disappointed that he didn’t announce himself as one? He may not be a Jesus freak but he is clearly a rather solid Christian who personally wrestles with matter of faith and contemplates the very meaning of faith in one’s personal life and discusses the role faith can/should in the public forum in a very thoughtful manner.
This is a pretty clear example of the “blank slate” theory where people just projected onto Obama what they wanted to see, whereas anyone who paid an iota of attention would know that he is not anywhere close to atheist.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Aaron:
Yes, but they were going to be driven crazy no matter what he did. A few weeks ago, I got a wingnut acquaintance at work to admit that no matter what Obama does, he will hate him for it. (Unless Obama becomes a wingnut himself, presumably.)
jrg
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair
Keith
INADEQUATELY RELIGIOUS MAY-UHN!
Little Dreamer
@JK:
You’re kidding yourself if you ever thought Obama would be non-religious. He admitted his faith before he was elected.
This is the one area where I absolutely disagree with Obama, but, I decided before the election that it was asking too much to have a president come out stating he did not believe in religion at all. I took the lesser of two evils in that sense.
gex
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss: Nah. Obama will still be black. You can’t wingnut that away.
Little Dreamer
@Adrienne:
Bravo! I absolutely agree.
Da Bomb
I don’t have a problem with President Obama attending church or declaring a religion that he personally abides by. As long as he doesn’t use it as hammer to wield to rule the land by.
It’s not the religion, it’s the adherents.
Either way, it’s a big win for Palin!
Mac from Oregon
Bush was the least religious religious president ever. He never went to any church I’m aware of, but managed to make people believe he was kneeling in devout prayer constantly. While that may have been true, it did not help him in the soul department.
I could care less what fairy tales one believes in, as long as they don’t hold my feet to the fire to join them. I do like the stories of pixies and dragons though. Can’t seem to find that church anywhere.
Mojotron
you mean he’s not a Subgenius? it would explain the slack on DADT and the torture photos.
JK
@Adrienne: @Little Dreamer:
I regret that you didn’t pick up on it, but I was being sarcastic. I’m well-aware of Obama’s belief in God.
I’d really love to see an atheist elected president during my lifetime. Given the irrational hatred that currently exists towards non-believers, I think the only way for one to get elected is to pretend to be a believer during the campaign and then come out of the closet after being sworn into office.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@JK:
Definite one-termer, then, unless they do it in the second term.
maya
Wandering lost and alone amid all the steeple people of the beltway he must really be missing the Rev Wright.
Incertus
@Adrienne: He described himself as a religious skeptic before he joined Wright’s church in Chicago. It’s not “projecting onto a blank slate” to think that just maybe Barack Obama was, even then, an ambitious politician who knew you can’t get elected to town bum without at least mouthing the proper religious platitudes and joined for that reason.
Personally, I don’t know if Obama believes or not, and I really don’t care one way or another, as long as he uses rational thought when making decisions. But it’s not nearly the stretch you’re making it out to be to at least consider that he joined a church for political as opposed to spiritual reasons.
SGEW
Pete Stark 2016?
Ash
@JK: For some reason you seem to have bought into the wingnut meme that since Obama grew up somewhat areligious, the fact that he joined a church in later life makes him an atheist. I remember one particular wingnutty screed that parsed EVERY comment as evidence that he was a heathen.
Now I’m an agnostic-leaning-toward-atheist, and I would love to see it happen one day as well. But you’ve been had.
Edit: Whoops, didn’t read your second comment.
Little Dreamer
@Incertus:
You must have missed Obama’s talk about faith before he was elected.
Little Dreamer
@Ash:
and that makes three of us who didn’t detect his sarcasm, because it surely didn’t sound like sarcasm.
Incertus
@Little Dreamer: No, I didn’t. What part of “doing it for political gain” escapes you? Do you think that Barack Obama has to be sincere when he’s talking about faith? He’s a damn politician–faking sincerity is a requisite for the job.
Now maybe he is sincere when talking about faith, but here’s the thing–you don’t know that, just as I don’t know he isn’t. No one knows the depth of another person’s actual faith, and if you’re buying what he’s saying just because he said it, then you’re being more than a little thick.
tballou
It appears that for every decision Obama makes, he asks himself “WWBD”?
BDeevDad
Please explain to me why I should care?
Screamin' Demon
And then Republicans immediately begin impeachment hearings, and spend four years attempting to hound the un-American heathen out of office.
Jon H
Camp David: Where no one can hear you sleep in on Sunday
JK
@Ash:
Read my follow-up post #23. I was being sarcastic.
************************************************************
– I know that Obama believes in God.
– I’m disappointed that Obama holds this view and I wish he were an atheist.
– I wish there weren’t so many fucking religious nutjobs in this country, so that an atheist could have a fair chance of getting elected president.
– I think it fucking sucks that there is almost as much intolerance towards atheists in parts of the United States as there is towards non-Muslims in parts of Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc
– If anyone believes atheists are accepted by most Americans read this goddamn study
h/t http://www.mndaily.com/2009/02/22/survey-us-trust-lowest-atheists
metricpenny
OMG! And they both pee standing up too!
Ramalamadingdong
Politico reports the story isn’t true.
The White House said Monday that President Barack Obama continues “to look for a church home,” and said a magazine report that he has stopped is erroneous.
Little Dreamer
@Incertus:
I listened to him and heard his inflections. I heard the way he genuinely described his faith, he made a believer out of me. Should I never believe anyone when they say they believe in God simply because some people who say they do are liars? It seems to me you’re the one who is being more than a little thick.
What I heard about his belief in his faith was that he was someone who believed in Jesus’ Beatitudes lessons. To me, that’s the only positive message I take away from the New Testament. I’m sorry but when someone cites the Beatitudes as their belief system, I have a hard time calling them a liar.
Ash
@BDeevDad: Well you shouldn’t. But most of the stuff we talk about doesn’t really matter anyway.
Little Dreamer
@JK:
Well, if it’s any consolation, Christians are the most trusted group, and as far as I can tell, most of them aren’t worth their weight in salt.
gbear
Said by Jesse Ventura when he was the governor of MN. There are
so manya few things to miss about Jesse…Ash
@gbear: It could be said that Ventura was the head of his own cult of personality though.
Incertus
@Little Dreamer: In short, you heard what you wanted to hear. I repeat–Barack Obama is a very successful politician, which means he’s good at getting people to hear what he wants them to. And again–I don’t know if Obama truly believes or if he’s playing everyone, and neither do you. You’re going on gut instinct when you say you believe him. I’m simply refusing to honor the question with an answer.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Maybe Obama secretly worships Zeus, but he knows that there’s no way he can ever win an election if the public finds out about the animal sacrifices and orgying with the 12 other members of his faith.
You can’t DISprove it, anyway.
Little Dreamer
@Incertus:
Bullshit! I wanted to hear him say he didn’t believe in a religious structure at all. I accepted what I heard because he chose to state his belief was according to the Beatitudes and not according to Dominionist/Prosperity gospel bullshit.
Little Dreamer
@Incertus:
You are simply unwilling to believe anyone who could attain to the presidency could utter something out of his mouth that wasn’t a lie.
While I agree that not everyone who talks about their beliefs should be believed, I do not believe that means we should never believe anyone if they are sincere. I do feel that Obama was sincere.
Since you cannot believe anyone when they state their position on anything, I feel sorry for you.
Jay in Oregon
@JK:
Somehow, I think lying about being a “person of faith” to get elected and then admitting it later would not be the most constructive means of countering prejudice against atheists as having no moral structure.
Adrienne
@Incertus:
Most people are religious skeptics before they actually begin attending and subsequently decide to join a church. That just makes him like almost every other serious person of faith I know. You aren’t serious about faith unless you wrestle with it – wrestle with its meaning and its place in your life and on the greater society, while recognizing and reconciling your faith with the inevitable doubt that it brings.
As to whether he joined Wright’s church for political reasons, that’s another issue. He may very well have chosen that specific church for specific reasons (political convenience, aquaintance with other members, power w/in the community, longtime connections, or otherwise) but his discussions, writings, and deliberations about his faith reveal much more than a shallow, “for show”, gimmicky faith and understanding thereof. I actually found him to be the most authentic, thoughtful and comfortable candidate in regards to matters of faith – both public and private.
EDIT: I should add that my father is a deacon, my mother is a deaconess, and they attend church 2-3 days a week. I know true religion when I see it. Obama is a believer.
Nellcote
Although he’s not an atheist, he does give a shout out to non-believers more than any politician I’ve ever heard.
jrg
He’s saying that a self-professed atheist would be unlikely to win the presidency, and Obama knows that. If Obama is not religious, he has a compelling reason to make people believe otherwise.
Faith(N) : “belief that is not based on proof.” I fail to see why “faith” is not considered a pejorative term, like “bullshit”.
grendelkhan
So… in John Cole world, there’s nothing substantive or important on which to criticize Obama, and meaningless newsfluff about which church he’s attending is roughly as important as his plans to continue our system of gulags… and anyone who points this out is a disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporter, much like anyone anyone on Little Green Footballs who crosses the line is a Moby.
JK
@Jay in Oregon:
Once again, I was being provocative. I was not advocating that a presidential candidate actually employ this strategy. It would definitely be a Pyrrhic victory if someone tried it.
Actually, I’d like to see some sort of large scale grass roots campaign that could reduce the level of mistrust and bigotry towards atheists and agnostics. I just have no idea what form it would take or how it could succeed.
As the Univ of Minnesota study indicates, lowering the levels of bigotry against atheists and agnostics will be incredibly difficult if not downright impossible.
@gbear:
Could not have said it better myself. I may be mistaken, but I have a vague recollection of Ventura trying to somehow walk back from this statement after he was heavily criticized in the media.
JK
@Nellcote:
As an atheist, I was very happy that Obama gave a shout out to non-believers.
On the negative side, the fact that atheists and agnostics are still regarded as un-Patriotic or immoral by large numbers of Americans means that there is a religious test one must pass in order to run for president. This is an outrage and it should be just as offensive to fair minded people as efforts to block gay marriage.
Adrienne
Maybe because there are large number people who are indeed very serious about faith and who use it to enrich their existence on earth. Maybe because there ARE things that are unexplained. Maybe because some people need to believe that there are things out there greater than themselves.
I can understand if you are skeptical of religion. Hell, I’m skeptical of religion and fall somewhere on the curve btw a spiritual humanistic agnostic. But there is a huge difference between skepticism of faith/religion and dismissing and/or disrespecting those of faith by trivializing its meaning on their lives. You are flirting with that line and it is just as ugly as when people of faith dismiss the nonfaithful as immoral. It’s the other side of the same coin.
JK
Does anyone reading this thread think an openly atheist or agnostic candidate has a realistic chance of winning the democratic presidential nomination in your lifetime?
jrg
You don’t get any closer to explaining something by loosening the criteria for a “valid” explanation. If you have a problem with faith defined as “belief that is not based on proof”, take it up with Dictionary.com.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
I totally agree, and disagree with the soft cover given to the bullshit under the slogan “not everything is explainable.”
Actually, everything is explainable, although you may not have the explanation, or an easy path to it, at the moment.
Faith is belief despite evidence to the contrary. While any belief system that is rigid is also brittle, it would be foolish to start with the idea that evidence is your enemy.
Unfortunately, that’s where most “faith based” notions are these days. Opposed to evidence, which is objectively a form of mental illness.
Adrienne
@JK:
I certainly think it’s possible. Look – if you would have told me eight years ago (let’s say, oh, September 12, 2001) that we would elect a half-breed black man from Hawaii with a Muslim middle name and a Muslim father, who lived in Indonesia as a child, and who attended a church where the preacher said “Goddamn America” I would have laughed my ass off in ridicule – yet……..
Little Dreamer
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
We live in a world filled with mentally ill which expects that all who attain the position of president will conform to this mental illness as well. If that is how it is, I would rather have a president that realizes that the Bible has a couple of good things in it (in the Beatitudes) and doesn’t rely on the crap sold by most churches today (prosperity gospel/dominionist crap).
cynthia
For a goverment that is SO bent in keeping the church out of politic, they sure are taking an interest in where the President and his family supposively worship.
Ash
@JK: Yes. But I’m still pretty young, and us youngins’ are running away from organized religion in droves.
Adrienne
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
I disagree. That is what fundamentalist fanatics aka the Jesus freak coalition have sought to turn it into. True faith is in regards to those things which remain unexplainable or simply unknowable. True faith is not static in nature and does not exist in a vacuum – which is why the serious wrestle with their understanding of their faith and it’s proper role in their lives and the public sphere.
@jrg:
WTF does that even mean?
Death By Mosquito Truck
@Adrienne:
.. because he could communicate in ways that trumped tribal identification. And one of those ways was using godspeak which a large majority of Americans understand. Presumably the atheist candidate won’t have this card to play and historically our candidates have been pretty lousy communicators.
Little Dreamer
@Adrienne:
Adrienne, the fact that you swallow Jesus juice and your family is deeply involved in the church doesn’t change the fact that there are explanations for questions and you simply choose to not believe them.
You are opening up a can of worms if you want to argue this point with TZ. He will not give you any quarter on it, and neither will I.
The Big Bang and Evolution prove all we need to know.
DrPresident
The White House is refuting this story, per Politico:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24323.html#ixzz0Jq7Y5qhD&C
Adrienne
Which, in my opinion, is the true meaning of faith in terms of Christianity. Much of what we see of Christianity these days has been so corrupted as to either render the term nearly meaningless or subject it to intense disdain by those outside the faith. Obama clearly rejects the hyperdivisive, non-believers and those whose faith lies elsewhere as immoral beings damned to hell, etc etc shallow brand of Christianity that seeks to have everyone relinquish their freedom of religion in favor of their brand.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Adrienne:
Well, no disrespect, but I am not swayed.
Even at the collegiate dictionary level, faith is belief in the absence of proof.
Not everything can be proved, at the moment. Failure to understand this properly would lead to the incorrect conclusion that in the absence of proof, it’s okay to believe just about anything. That is where faith is today, and that is just nuts. There’s no other word for it, it’s nuts.
I am talking about extant, popular faith, not technically sound faith. Technically sound faith is … sound. More or less. But the problem is, popular practice of faith is not sound. So there is no reason to think that when somebody talks about their faith they are talking from a sound point of view. There is every reason to think they they are likely to be full of crap.
Eh?
Adrienne
@Little Dreamer:
Umm, you obviously CAN’T FUCKING READ or just choose not to comprehend or process what you read if it does not fit into your prepackaged schema (I’m not sure which one is worse, prob the latter) because I rather clearly announced that I am a religious skeptic myself – at least in terms of organized religions – even though I grew up in a religious household. I also said that I fall somewhere in the realm of “spiritual humanistic agnostic”. See post 55.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Adrienne:
Well, like the blind kids touching the elephant, we may be all talking about pieces of the same thing. Or not, but just saying.
Skepticism is a good start. So for the purpose of disambiguation, how do we reconcile skepticism and faith?
I tried to give some idea of my thought on this. What’s yours?
Little Dreamer
@Adrienne:
Well, I personally think the Beatitudes are a great message of how we should treat each other, but I don’t have to have faith in any god to believe in the rightness of that message. I fail to see where the Beatitudes are an article of faith. They are about as faith filled as Hammurabi’s Code.
Adrienne
That’s my point. While nuanced, faith is belief in the absence of proof (one way or the other). That is NOT the same as belief CONTRARY to proof. Subtle yet all important difference. The former is where true people of faith congregate and ultimately diverge. The latter is where crazy fundamentalist assholes seek to take the meaning of faith thereby corrupting it and making it hostile to those who seek to reconcile faith with reason.
Little Dreamer
@Adrienne:
The fact that you are defending faith speaks to your not being a skeptic, sorry.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Adrienne:
These are the same people who told me that anyone who has religious views is a child abuser. When I asked them if that included Obama, they said “yes.”
You have no idea what you’re getting in to, here.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Little Dreamer:
What? Thou shall have no other gods before me, or, Who’s your Goddy?
Heh.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
To you, and me, and LD, and a lot of BJ’ers. But the popular faith crowd doesn’t make those distinctions. To them, belief in the absence of proof and belief in the face of evidence to the contrary are the same thing.
So we are not talking about language, we are talking about practice. Or I should say, I am.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
No, that is a baldfaced lie.
I made no such assertion. I don’t know exactly what others asserted to you. If they asserted what you just said, then your beef is with them.
My assertion was that anyone who tells a child that certain things are true and MUST BE BELIEVED even in the face of evidence to the contrary, and suggest that skepticism is wrong, is abusing the child.
Period. That was, and is, my assertion. It stands, and I am not going to let you turn it into something else the way you did on that previous thread. You lied then, and you are doing it again. I never saw anyone say what your blurb states (above in blockquote). If they did, which I doubt, then they were incorrect.
Little Dreamer
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
Do you want to reopen that discussion? I’d just steer clear if I were you.
I wouldn’t want to be known as one of the people who thinks teaching children about guilt and sin and hellfire is an admirable quality.
Your turn?
JK
@Ash:
I wish I could live long enough to see it happen.
@cynthia:
This business about separation of church and state is a bunch of bullshit. We absolutely DO NOT have a separation of church and state. How can there be a Senate Chaplain and a House Chaplain if we supposedly have a separation of church and state?
CNN hosted 2 presidential forums on faith during the 2008 presidential campaign. WTF was up with that? Don’t forget Obama and McCain appearing at Rick Warren’s church where they answered questions about faith and religion. And don’t forget all the dickish questions asked at Dem and Repub presidential debates – What’s your favorite Bible passage?, Do you believe everything in the Bible is true?, Would Jesus support the death penalty? Of course, there wasn’t a single presidential debate devoted to science and technology.
I thought we elected a president not a priest, minister, rabbi, imam, or ayatollah.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Little Dreamer:
In other words, since Obama takes his kids to some sort of church, and since churches talk about those sorts of things, Obama’s a child abuser.
Are you going to call DCF on the White House, or not?
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@JK:
I am pretty sure that separation rests on the “Congress shall make no law” wording. Not on whether a house of congress can say a prayer or have a chaplain.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
True. No one using your handle appeared in that thread, to the best of my recollection. My apologies for assuming you were in any way associate with others, who DID make such assertions.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
The only person who ever wrote such nonsense was you, dude.
gex
@ThymeZoneThePlumber: Exactly! And to reemphasize, what do we think we will manage to explain if, “because it’s a fucking mystery, that’s why” counts as sufficient explanation? Why do most people grow out of accepting “because I say so” as an explanation from their parents, but continue to accept it from their religion?
Little Dreamer
Wrong. If they are teaching children about Hellfire and sin/guilt, THAT is wrong. If they are teaching children about Noah’s Ark and David and Goliath, while those stories have no basis in fact, I don’t have a problem with it.
Why would I call DCF? Are you still under the impression I’m a social worker? I’m not, I never have been, although it was a career I had once considered, with the focus on battered women.
Adrienne
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
I think we are.
There’s the million dollar question. And that’s where reasonable people diverge – First on the matter of whether to the skepticism is so large as to rule out faith altogether (atheists) or whether faith is given a chance (agnostics and ppl of faith). Once faith is given a chance, one decides how large a role, in what ways, etc.
Personally, I don’t think that there is any one way – hence my skepticism about organized religion – but I also don’t think it’s fair to ridicule those who, in good faith, choose something different than I have as long as they extend everyone else that same opportunity and respect of choice. It’s an incredibly personal issue and in this way, this is exactly the way I feel about the abortion debate. I’m pro-choice on both. I’m not pro or anti religion. Just as I think it is horrible for people of faith to speak ill of those w/o it just on the basis of that fact alone, I think it is equally horrible for those of us who choose otherwise to do the same to ppl of faith. A little respect goes a long way.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Well, just to be clear, I use the handles TZTP, PANDG, Inflatable Commenter, Dan Smoot’s Ghost.
So I have no idea what handles were in use. I never use more than one handle per thread unless by accident. Which does happen once in a while.
But since we are addressing this point … who said that taking kids to church was child abuse? I never saw anything that rose to that level. My intent was to focus on instructing the child, not exposing the child to whatever. Instructing a child not to believe what he sees and hears and believe a prescribed set of things no matter what, or else he is going to hell, is the kind of abuse I was talking about. If I failed to make that clear at the time, then I am doing so now.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
Then clarify the point. Either you’re a child abuser for taking your kids to church, or you’re not. Every time I tried to get a straight answer in the old thread, I was called every name in the book. Seems like this is going to be a repeat, but calling me names and answering my question are not the same thing.
RedKitten (formerly Krista - the Canadian one)
I’ve read that on many occasions, and it never ceases to astonish and depress me. Not that I want any of those particular groups to be distrusted either, of course! However, it really speaks to a society’s mindset when they would ostracize you for not being able to believe in some imaginary deity. I think a lot of religious people just don’t understand that you can’t MAKE yourself believe in something. And it’s sad that they would evidently have a bunch of false, non-believing CINOs amongst their ranks than have to face the awful fact that not everybody believes the way they do.
Little Dreamer
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
What about HWPK?
;)
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Adrienne:
I agree about the respect, but I have reservations in practice.
If a “person of faith” sets out to box me in, or to hire the government to box me in, then I am his enemy. People can believe whatever they like, but they can’t box me in.
And then in practice, when they see me coming, they see me as their enemy, and the game is on. Where respect is concerned, I start giving it to them the minute they back off from boxing me in. Not one secone before.
Little Dreamer
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
I answered the question above:
If they teach fairytales out of the Bible, that is not child abuse
If they teach that a child is born guilty of sin and is going to Hell if they don’t accept a formless being as their god, THAT is child abuse.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
I hope that my post at 87 clarifies the point, from my viewpoint (others must do their own clarifying, I’m too lazy).
Does that work for you?
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Little Dreamer:
Cheery stories about global extermination and decapitation are okay with you, but not if they have any kind of morality being imposed behind them. Sounds like Noah’s Ark should have less meaning than an Aesop Fable- and that to give the story any meaning amounts to child abuse.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Little Dreamer:
Puppy kicking is now politically incorrect here. John’s little dog has ruined puppy kicking for everyone.
Adrienne
Because they, as bodies, can choose to have one. Operative word being choice. Noone is FORCED to talk to the Chaplains or participate in any prayers offered. Separation of church and state does NOT mean total and complete elimination of religion from the public sphere and it DAMN sure doesn’t mean that individual people of faith must separate their religion from their persona or are precluded from discussing it publicly or that public officials are precluded from partaking in religious themed events or activities planned by religious hosts.
What it does mean is that noone can be forced to partake in such events as a matter of law. The clause is there to ensure that government does not officially take sides one way or the other – either between the religious or secular NOR between religions themselves. It means treating them neutrally, not seeking to eliminate them all from the public forum.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@gex:
I don’t know. I think it’s the music, and then the sex at church camp.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
In all fairness, there was a post in that thread by someone who said “Not all child abusers are religious, but all religious people are child abusers.” I quoted it constantly, hoping for rebuttals; instead, I got what appeared to me to be grudging concurrences.
If I have to go back and find that thread and dredge up the exact post, I will. But it WAS said. And that was the entire basis of the argument. I happen to dispute the idea that every single one of the 270 million (or whatever) religious people in this country is a child abuser. Insults and bickering and ad hominems aside, I’m trying to see if we can all at least agree that this idea is absurd.
Little Dreamer
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
No, and that is not how they teach those stories in the churches I went to as a child.
I never heard that Goliath was decapitated (I’ll admit I never cared much about refocusing on the story in my adulthood). Noah’s Ark talks more about the ark and how the animals were put in the ark, not about global extermination. It wasn’t presented as global extermination. Now that you put it that way, if those are the ways those stories are being presented these days, then I agree, those are child abuse as well.
You are making my point even more, do you want to continue?
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Only if it is Republicans who are taking it in the hiney.
Little Dreamer
Edited for clarity, AJAX said I didn’t have permission to edit my post. Sorry.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
Agreed.
NOW can we get back to the insults?
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Little Dreamer:
You don’t even understand what my point is. I’m not a defender of Christianity, as you’ve consistently tried to make me out to be. What I am is a defender of people who have any kind of religious view, however crazy that religious view may seem to you or me.
I want to find out if you think every single person who is, say, Catholic or Episcopalian or Baptist or Muslim or what have you is a child abuser. Does taking your kids into churches or mosques that talk about this sort of thing make someone a child abuser to you? And if so, if you were in power, what would you do about it?
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
I would make them all eat dinosaur burgers.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
Sure thing, you fucking prick.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Darrell welcome you into a thread once with “Thymezone! Welcome back, you disgusting piece of shit!”? I know he used words to that effect, any way. This was right around the time he got banned for telling you to kill yourself, if memory serves.
Little Dreamer
@Little Dreamer:
My position is that if a church (and by association, the parents who put that child into that class) is teaching a child to submit to fearful obedience to a religious deity because of threats of hellfire (in death) and ostracizing (in life) then, I think that is child abuse. If a church and the parents aren’t involved in that, then, I will agree it is not child abuse. Unfortunately, all of the tenets of the Christian faith ultimately lead to a choice between Hellfire and Heaven and taking the choice away from an individual (either child or adult) is abuse. If a person submits to that belief on their own, that is one thing, if they are being forced to believe it as a direct result of the person’s family, friends or peers, that is wrong.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/3346/raptorjesus1bv9.jpg
Little Dreamer
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
I am not in power. I can’t say what I would do. Honestly, I would want to make sure children were not being forced to believe they would suffer eternally in Hellfire for not believing in some stupid fairy tale that adults force on them. Since I am not in power, you’ll never have to worry about what I would do, would you?
If I found out my child was going to that kind of church, I would remove them immediately (of course, the damage would already have been done).
Do you think it’s okay to take children into church where snakes are handled? What’s your opinion on that? Do you think children should hold snakes?
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Little Dreamer:
Okay, so simply taking your kids into church with you is not child abuse, but browbeating those kids into accepting that religion is. I certainly agree with that- getting pressured into a religion is, at best, like getting married with a shotgun pointed at your back.
Little Dreamer
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
WTF does that have to do with anything, are you Darrell?
Little Dreamer
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
I will admit that I think there are very few churches where this sort of thing doesn’t happen. I would expect they would not start the Hellfire talk in the early years of a child’s life, although I’ve been made aware of certain fundamentalist sects where children are taught about this type of thing at a very young age.
It happens a lot more often than it doesn’t.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Little Dreamer:
Doesn’t matter. Neither one of us has any power, we’re just squabbling over things neither one of us can control. I’m allowed to ask a hypothetical question if I want to. If you don’t want to answer it, fine.
Of course, although I’d question any babysitter who dragged my kid to some random church without my permission.
I have no idea. Do they make children handle rattlesnakes in those churches? If they do, it’s probably okay for the government to step in. If they don’t, but the adults do and the kids watch, then I don’t think government should be able to do anything about it. I don’t want government to get involved in religion. If it did, we’d all be Christian right now under penalty of incarceration. That’s a best-case scenario for right now, in terms of bloodshed. Worst case scenario is, we’d have wars of religious freedom for those of us who didn’t want to be Christian. Much more bloodshed, much higher body count, and America wouldn’t survive. The separation of church and state is a very valuable thing.
Little Dreamer
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
but the problem is that is quite often how children are introduced to religion. Do you think that we should just not oppose it because religion is a choice meant for all Americans to choose? How does a child fall into that choice situation when parents take them to a place that teaches these things? Is that free choice?
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Little Dreamer:
I wish. Best spoof ever.
Why are you answering questions I posed to Thymezone?
JK
@RedKitten (formerly Krista – the Canadian one):
When I see this study cited, I’m filled with disgust because it shows that we have our fair share of religious crazies like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Fortunately, the vast majority of our religious crazies are not violent like the religious crazies in Muslim countries but they’re still intolerant hateful SOBs who have succeeded in imposing a religious test for any person seeking to get elected president.
@Adrienne: @ThymeZoneThePlumber:
I will concede this point regarding the congressional chaplains. I’m not thrilled with the idea, but there are more disturbing practices that need to be confronted.
Is anyone else fed up and disgusted with all these Bible related questions being asked at presidential debates? I feel like Samuel L. Jackson regarding this issue, “I’ve had it with these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane” To me the Bible is a wonderful work of fiction right up there with the Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Aeneid. However, the notion of asking candidates questions about the Iliad, the Odyssey, or the Aeneid strikes me as totally insane. The President of the United States has no clerical obligations that I’m aware of, so why the hell is it acceptable, appropriate, or reasonable for dopes like Anderson Cooper and Brian Williams to get away with asking these goddamn questions? At the very least, to try and level the playing field, it should be required that a presidential debate covering science and technology issues be held during the primary season and later between the Dem and Repub nominees.
Little Dreamer
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
Because I wanted to.
You placed the question on this thread, that doesn’t mean only TZ can answer it.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Little Dreamer:
That point goes to you.
I am probably the most obnoxious about sticking my nose into conversations of anyone here. I tend to speak to posts and not to people. Old habits left over from Usenet flamewar days. In those days you had to be able to sling half a dozen flame wars simultaneously and not lose your place.
Beatin’ up on Truthers. Good times.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Little Dreamer:
You’re pretty much under your parents’ care until you’re 18. Barring harm to the child, that’s the rule. We let people way more dangerous than Christians raise kids. You don’t see the government busting down Klansmens’ doors to take their kids away, do you? If some guy wants to raise his kids to hate black people, that’s his right. As long as he’s not abusing the kids (and no, political ideology is not going to be defined as abuse, neither is religion) there’s not much anyone else can do about it.
Having seen how much DCF abuses the power it has already, I’m not comfortable according DCF the authority to decide that someone letting their 5-year-old go to Mass with them is grounds to pry that child out of that home and send him off to go live with the foster parents whose 19-year-old is a closet pederast. (I worked on a case where the foster parents actually had a son like that.) Bear in mind, if government’s going to start prying kids out of the homes of religious people, religious people are going to get pretty riled up. They’re still the overwhelming majority in the country, and a lot of the Democratic coalition is quite religious, too. Before you know it, there might be laws on the books in which NOT taking your kids to some kind of religious teaching constitutes child abuse. This is why we don’t try to legislate this kind of thing. It’s very, very dangerous.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Hell yes, and HELL yes.
That is the exactly correct movie quote, too.
I would vote for a goddam Republican if he would look the questioner in the eye and say, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States, so said the Founders. Next question please.”
Little Dreamer
Hypothetical:
Man in church handles a snake and gets bitten, snake gets out of his grasp, is loose in the church, is that child who is also in that church not in danger?
You do know that snakes bite people who handle them in church and people do die from those bites? You do know that when you’ve been bitten by a snake, it’s very easy to lose control of that snake?
We’re already involved in wars of religion, they play out in our political environment. As stated above, we really have no separation of church and state, what you see as separation of church and state is a farce. A man cannot be elected unless he is Christian. He cannot be a candidate without having to answer questions on religion.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Little Dreamer:
Okay. Now answer my question about how you’d run America if you were in charge.
Or don’t.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
Yes, and that was one of his warmer greetings.
We had some great flame wars, of which I won all of them.
At least that is the way I remember it.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Little Dreamer:
Sure. Same as if the man took his kid to the zoo and there were a mishap. Or, if they were out hiking. You think government should regulate religion because there’s an outside chance of harm to a child? You really want government to have that kind of power over peoples’ lives?
I have no idea. I haven’t studied the statistics of bites in snake-handling groups. Do you have statistics handy for me?
Are they any worse than the number of kids who are injured when their parents take them on hikes in the woods on Sundays in lieu of going to church? Should government regulate that now, too? I doubt anyone’s ever done a comparative analysis, but I’d bet the woods are a lot more dangerous than a church, even a snakehandling one.
Little Dreamer
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
Well, for one thing, I don’t know who Klansmen are (they wear hoods for a reason) – but… no, I would not remove children for that because it’s different.
A child being taught to hate others is not being threatened with being punished after death and forced to make choices in their life that they would have trouble undoing in the future.
Churches give the message of Hellfire under the guise of “love”, not hate. Hate is easier to detect and to either reject de facto when that child is still a child (as I did when my grandparents were racists and I heard the crap coming out of their mouths) or as they get older and have more cognitive ability to make their own choices in the matter. It is not a life or death choice. When a message of “you are not good enough… but God loves you if you love his son and he will bless you with eternal life in heaven (an unprovable concept) if you believe and tell everyone you can about this love…” is much harder to fight against and robs a person of the ability to later choose to reject it. The Hellfire is a snare that steals someone’s life and opportunities. Look at the number of adherents to the churches, they didn’t get that way by introducing the concept of faith to adults, but by bringing children up in that environment.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Little Dreamer:
God loves you so much, He will throw you into the fire for eternity unless you kiss His ass at every opportunity.
What could be more loving than that?
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Little Dreamer:
Sure. Same as if the man took his kid to the zoo and there were a mishap. Or, if they were out hiking. You think government should regulate religion because there’s an outside chance of harm to a child? You really want government to have that kind of power over peoples’ lives?
I have no idea. I haven’t studied the statistics of bites in snake-handling groups. Do you have statistics handy for me?
Are they any worse than the number of kids who are injured when their parents take them on hikes in the woods on Sundays in lieu of going to church? Should government regulate that now, too? I doubt anyone’s ever done a comparative analysis, but I’d bet the woods are a lot more dangerous than a church, even a snakehandling one.
That’s because it’s a democracy, and people can vote for whomever they want based upon whatever criteria they want. I know a girl who didn’t vote for Kerry because she thought he was ugly. I’ve known other people who didn’t vote for candidates because they “didn’t like” them. People can vote however they want, and since most people are Christians, most people feel comfortable electing Christians.
Have you ever studied European history? Just read about the recent history of Bosnia, or of Northern Ireland. Last time I checked, people weren’t getting shot on the bus because they made the sign of the cross as the bus was driving by a Catholic church.
Do you want to argue that the inability of an avowed atheist to get elected, democratically, in an overwhelmingly Christian country is on par with a genuine religious war?
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
Yeah, somehow I think he liked you deep down.
Of course, I strongly suspect he was a spoof, and if I’m right about that it might not be too far-fetched.
Then again, I have no proof that he was spoofing. I’m relying on faith, blind faith, that Darrell was a spoof. The contrary possibility implies certain things about the human capacity for evil that I’d care not to acknowledge right now, however factually accurate they may be.
Little Dreamer
Outside chance?
The number of incidents of snakes biting their handlers is much larger than mishaps at zoos. Sorry, you’re wrong. So, you think children should be forced to go to a church with snakes if their parents wish it, so long as the government isn’t involved in making those decisions.
Well, if my parents went to a snake-handling church, if I were a child forced to go to that church, I’d run away, and I would try to take some sort of legal action to keep me out of that church if I were shown how to do so. On the other hand, I am not afraid of going to zoos, in fact, I like zoos. In zoos, the animals aren’t regularly removed from their confines as regular practice and their cages are maintained on a regular basis. Sure, mishaps can occur, but they are very rare.
As for the woods being more dangerous, I’ve lived in the woods, and spent much time in the woods. The most I ever got from being in the woods was a scraped knee or a bit of poison ivy. Those are not life-threatening situations. When snakes bite, they inject poison that can kill a child faster than an adult, you seem to not have a problem with poisonous snakes being set loose in a church full of children, interesting.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Little Dreamer:
Why? I think it’s a lot more abusive.
So you think taking your kid to church is worse than teaching your kid that non-white people are subhumans who are acceptable to murder?
Well, judging by the number of racist people I’ve met in my life, it seems like not everyone was able to reject racist messages as a child. And I’d have to say that they’ve caused a great deal more harm to my life, personally, and to those around me, than religious people have. And yet, I don’t want government taking Klansmens’ kids away, either. Because if the government can deprive one group (Klansmen, snake handlers) of their rights, it can easily turn on another group and do the same thing (atheists, Unitarians, liberals).
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
Well, we have a spoof mailing list, and a pretty strong community of spoofers around here. I always figured it was 50-50 that Darrell was spoof. But if he was, he was so good at it that none of the spoof tells would work reliably on him.
You do know that DougJ started his career here as a spoof, right? And he is damned good at it. Bagged me a hundred times.
I myself do not spoof, I am no good at it, and I am way too lazy to keep it going.
Little Dreamer
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
It is an operation of a larger covert war, yes.
Your answer on this entire section of my question to you is absolutely lame.
Little Dreamer
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
I should also state, the fact that you called America an “overwhelmingly Christian country” is the problem. We’re not an “overwhelming Christian country” we are a country with an overwhelming Christian population contained within.
America is NOT a Christian nation, read the Treaty of Tripoli. The separation of church and state should mean we are not a “Christian country” at all.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Can’t we all just get a bong?
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Statistics. Links. No evidence.
Fortunately, government does not run based upon your personal aesthetic preferences. I think of zoos and prisons for animals, and I think it’s abusive to teach kids that it’s acceptable to punish animals this way. Fortunately, government does not run based upon my personal aesthetic preferences, either.
And I’ve lived in the woods, too, and I’ve seen those kinds of snakes in them. I mention the forest to highlight how absurd your justification for government intervention is.
What about people who live in ghettoes? Statistically, their kids are in more danger than anyone else, yet somehow I don’t see government agents swarming in to rush their children off to foster care in the suburbs with the decent school districts and the shortage of drug dealers.
Government protects children from imminent or ongoing harm, or demonstrated harm. It doesn’t protect children from every conceivable form of harm that might befall them. If it did, all children would be raised in isolated bubbles somewhere, far away from their parents.
Little Dreamer
Well, I’m sorry that you don’t agree with my assessment, but, since you are not arguing for the removal of these children, I guess there is nothing further to talk about on this matter.
Little Dreamer
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
No! ;)
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Little Dreamer:
Right. So people voting for a candidate they like over one they don’t (for whatever stupid reason they like or dislike that person) is equivalent to warfare. Got it.
Your unwillingness to accept that in a democracy, people can vote however they damn well please for whatever stupid-ass reason they choose is worse than lame. It’s scary.
Little Dreamer
Bullshit. Snakes in the woods are in their natural environment and have places to hide, and will usually do so. Snakes will not normally strike unless they feel they are being attacked.
Snakes in Church do not have the ability to hide and are in unnatural surroundings. They would be in better position to strike and kill people (not just children) if they were loose in a church.
How can you equate the two?
When I lived in the woods, I never saw a snake. I used to walk through the woods everyday for years, as a child, and I would again if I could. I am deathly afraid of snakes. I would not hesitate to go in to the woods. I would hesitate to take one step inside a snake handling church.
Little Dreamer
Nice strawman. I said forcing a presidential candidate to be a Christian is an operation of a covert war religious war which is conducted by evangelicals.
Prove to me where I ever stated that, asshole. Another strawman. You’re doing it again. You are a totally dishonest debater. GTFOOH, I’m done with your stupid bullshit.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Little Dreamer:
Point taken, apologies for the unclear language.
No shit. But most of the voters are Christian, and they mostly like to vote for other Christians. You might think it’s stupid, I might think it’s stupid, but it’s a little different than lining atheists up against the wall and shooting them in the head.
It’s a democracy. Most people are Christian, and like to vote for Christians. If you want an atheist President, either convince the Christians to vote for one; or, wait and see if eventually most Americans stop being Christians, or, stop letting people vote.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
I’m going to ignore your points in favor of a literal nanny state and your utterly unsubstantiated claims that snakehandling churches are hotbeds of child death, to deal with this:
@Little Dreamer:
Force? What force? Who’s holding a gun to Democratic primary voters heads, telling them to vote for the Christian over the atheist? Where is it written that voting for an atheist is a criminal act?
Your inability to distinguish between voter choice and authoritarian compulsion is frightening. Of course, you’d also like the government to swoop down and take children away from the homes of racists and Christians, without considering that you’d then be one bad election away from having your own children taken away; so this really doesn’t surprise me.
Little Dreamer
What part of COVERT do you not understand idiot? I never said anyone was lining up atheists and shooting them, I said that a candidate has to answer questions about his faith so that an atheist never attains the presidency. In that sense, it is an operation of a covert war.
Of those three things, I do not expect any of them to happen, and I would never choose to stop letting people vote. I believe in democracy. Christians will never allow an atheist to be president, and I expect Americans will never stop being Christians either.
Little Dreamer
You apparently missed the faith forums that the candidates have to attend and answer questions of faith in now? Barack Obama had to attend one before he could be president. That is forcing a presidential candidate to come out with faith statements that are unconstitutional.
Little Dreamer
Your inability to distinguish between candidates for office and voters is even more frightening. Your “authoritarian compulsion” is a lie, btw. The authoritarians expect a faith statement, but they are not themselves being forced to choose anything by gunpoint.
You’re absolutely fucked in the head.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Not to pour charcoal lighter on a hot brick oven, but ….
How do we reconcile this idea with the “no religious test” concept?
Or I guess another way of saying it is, how does the Constitution prevent a religious test for office? We are actually in the first stages of having a religious test for office right now.
Adrienne
@Little Dreamer:
Excuse you? If you truly believe that than you are, in fact, an idiot. One can be skeptical of something yet still respect – and yes, even defend – the CHOICE that others make for themselves. If you are unable to understand that tells me a lot about your general perspective. You are just like the religious piety nutjobs – just from the opposite end of the spectrum.
However, I’m not defending faith so much as I am defending people of faith and their right to choose for themselves without being adversely labeled out of hand for doing so. I don’t want them to adversely paint me with a wide brush and so I’m advocating that people on my side don’t do the same. As I said, a little respect FROM BOTH SIDES goes a long way.
Little Dreamer
Gee, you know so much about me, I wonder why you don’t remember that I did have a child taken away from me? Why? Because I was protecting her from being severely beaten to the point of death and ended up stabbing the guy who was about to kill her. I’m not going to satisfy your desire to read my horror story, fuck off… but you have NO CLUE of which you speak, and what I know about that situation. FUCK YOU!
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Little Dreamer:
If you’re going to be a snippy little asshole, there’s not much point in talking to you. Your hysterical, alarmist notions that it’s a “war on atheists” that candidates have faith forums in which they talk about their faith (or, presumably, COULD TALK about their lack thereof, or COULD tell the moderators to go take a flying fuck at the Moon) indicate that you have no sense of proportion, or of how a democracy works. In a democracy, people who are religious like other people who are religious. I think they’re assholes for it, you think they’re assholes for it, but they like it. Candidates are asked about their faith. Candidates could lie about that, or tell the truth. Voters will vote based upon whether they believe the candidate, whether they trust the candidate, and whatever other stupid bullshit motivates the individual voter.
If you don’t like that system, move to some other country, where they dispense with elections. Or suck it up, and deal with the fact that in a democracy, the people you like aren’t always going to be the people the majority of the voters like.
Little Dreamer
Sorry, I have no respect for fire and brimstone zealots who want to turn the entire world on to their Jesus drug.
Little Dreamer
You honestly believe that if a candidate went into a faith forum and stated they didn’t believe in God that they’d have even a half of one percent chance of being elected? Ignorance, sheer, unadulterated ignorance.
Little Dreamer
Funny, I don’t hear you screaming about the fact that it’s unconstitutional.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
It’s not a religious test if the voters don’t vote for you.
If a Satanist candidate runs, and 99% of the voters don’t vote for them because they’re a Satanist, that’s democracy. That’s how it works. Or doesn’t work, if you like.
My understanding of the old-style religious tests is that you weren’t even allowed to seek higher office if you weren’t of a certain religious persuasion. Everyone is currently allowed to run for any office they want, although money is a much more effective blocker than religion. If an atheist with Ross Perot’s financial wherewithal wanted to run for President, what would be stopping them?
Adrienne
They don’t have to attend anything – they CHOSE to attend for whatever reason. Further, noone forced them to talk about religion even in the religious forum. If they weren’t people of faith they could have: A. Chosen not to attend, or B. Answered the questions without using religious teachings or philosophy. Every single question asked could have been approached by the candidate w/o mentioning God if they chose not to.
However, since I assume that most of them actually utilize aspects of their faith to wrestle with tho types of questions asked, I took no offense at their saying so. Knowing how a candidate forms their beliefs and what philosophies inform those beliefs is very informative – even if that process includes religion.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Little Dreamer:
At the risk of stepping into quicksand, I am going to suggest that we step back and take a breath here.
( sound of eggs pelting )
Okay, those are nice cage free eggs. But ….
I have long argued that in order for democracy to work, it has to be allowed to make mistakes. It has to be able to bend without breaking. It has to be permitted excesses, and to learn as it goes, and get better with trial and error.
Otherwise, you get factions, tribalism, and civil war. You get Iraq, don’t you?
So if I am right about this, then how do we make that work? My theory is to let my adversaries be, as I said before, right up until they start telling me what to do. They can’t tell me what to think, what religious views to have, who to marry or not marry, what books to read or movies to see. Or music to listen to. Or thoughts to have.
So I am suggesting that I think we are all in agreement on this point, or should be.
Now is everybody ready for ice cream?
Heh. Hold on while I don this garbage bag …..
JK
Most people are Christian, and like to vote for Christians.
Assume the following scenario. Tomorrow a presidential primary is being held in your state. You have 3 candidates from which to choose. The 1st candidate is a Christian, the 2nd candidate is a Muslim, and the 3rd candidate is an Atheist. The deciding issue for you is the environment. The Christian candidate opposes nuclear power and opposes drilling in the Arctic Natl Wildlife Reserve. The Muslim candidate and the Atheist candidate both support nuclear power and support drilling in ANWR. You are a Christian who supports nuclear power and supports drilling in ANWR. Are you going to vote for the Christian candidate who shares your religious affiliation but disagrees with you on nuclear power and ANWR? Or are you going to vote for the Muslim or Atheist candidate who has a different religious affiliation or no religious affiliation but who agrees with you on nuclear power and ANWR?
gex
WTF? In what way do those of faith need defending? How do the Christians in this country argue simultaneously that this is a Christian nation, our country was founded on Christianity, and most are Christian while simultaneously acting as though they are the most oppressed group in the country?
That I’m not allowed to get married is largely due to religious belief in this country. I don’t think that religious people need to have you “defending people of faith and their right to choose for themselves without being adversely labeled out of hand for doing so”.
Non believers, contrary to your take on it, don’t really care if people believe in God, Allah, or the FSM. Non-believers are becoming vocal about this because that shit has poisoned the public sphere, messing up policy, and directly affecting us.
Boo hoo. Poor religious people don’t like it when we criticize their faith. Meanwhile the rest of us are called evil, un-American, and have their faith thrust upon us. Perish the thought that someone might be “adversely labeled.” If your ideas can’t compete in the market place of ideas, that is not my problem.
Little Dreamer
@Adrienne:
You honestly believe that if a candidate said no to attending that they would have a chance of being elected?
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Little Dreamer:
Okay. Don’t know what you’re talking about, here. Don’t remember what you’re talking about. Sorry if I hit a nerve.
Little Dreamer
@JK:
The question of religion is of utmost importance to these people. The earth is disposable as far as they are concerned. They will vote for the Christian, because if they don’t, they put themselves in danger of Hellfire.
CalD
Here’s the thing: I’ve thought about this at some length and examined it from every angle I can think of and I just can’t think of any way you can have a workable Democracy without politicians. Majority rule depends on being able to get a majority of people to agree on something, anything, at least long enough to ever get anything done.
This gives rise to a professional class of people whose mission in life, much like salespeople, is talking people into doing things they may be disinclined to do. And until such time as large numbers of people begin making decisions based solely on completely rational reasons, then I think that of necessity we’re going to see some pretty odd behavior sometimes on the part of people whose job is to try people into stuff. I just don’t see any way around it.
Adrienne
DID I NOT MAKE MYSELF CLEAR THAT THOSE IDIOTS ARE NOT THE PEOPLE I AM DEFENDING?
Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong point. Again, it seems as though you just discard any information that does not fit into your pre-packaged mental schema.
I’ve spoken very disparagingly of the Jesus freak coalition and their intolerance – in this very thread. See post #63.
But, what you are doing to people of good faith is just as disrespectful as when “fire and brimstone zealots” do it to you. Don’t paint the entire religious community by the zealots. It’s just as unfair when you do it.
Little Dreamer
@gex:
But gex, didn’t you know? Christians are perpetual victims who believe the entire world (excluding them) is evil and all of the people of that world will oppress and hate them because of their faith. The only reason people hate them because of their faith is because they force it on others, sometimes at the point of death (inquisitions). There is no living peacefully with these people, they are not peaceful, they are “…Christian Soldiers, marching as to war”
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@JK:
I’m not sure. That’s a good way to make wingnut heads explode, though. They might go for the wingnut atheist or the wingnut Muslim. That’s pretty much the only circumstance under which they’d do so, though, and they’d still prefer a Christian wingnut if one were offered.
Little Dreamer
No, you are defending fire and brimstone zealots light.
The very tenets of the faith state you have to believe that God created the world, that the world turned evil, that God’s son will take only those who believe in him to Heaven so that they don’t have to go to Hell and God’s son told his followers to spread his message and gather all his sheep… this creates an environment of zealotry. No matter what way you mix it, if it’s Christian, that’s what it is.
So you’re defending zealot light.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
We’re ignoring the power of persuasion and money.
If you are an R or a D, and you find that your views are just this side of the ones that get you the money and the people putting your yard signs in front of their houses, you are going to adjust, shade or spin your positions as necessary to get the support. That’s the true power of the political machine and the strong party system. It’s the power to homogenize policy thinking and keep it in the middle of the bell curve. (LD is rolling her eyes — the bell curve again!)
Political power is like gravity, it pulls both bodies together. It’s how GWBush got all those religous voters to swoon for him even though he never really gave them that much in return. He just had Rove spin up the culture signals and Cheney growl up the defense signals and sat back.
Little Dreamer
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
Ha! Grrrrrr!!!!
;)
Damn you!
JK
In what universe, astral plane, or temporal displacement, is a candidate’s view on the Bible’s veracity, knowledge of a candidate’s favorite Bible passage, or a candidate’s guess about Jesus’ views on the death penalty any way relevant to assessing which candidate has a more practical and fiscally responsible education, healthcare, or environmental policy?
It seems to me that the only reason for asking these questions is that Brian Williams, Anderson Cooper, and their colleagues are a bunch of pantywaist cowards quivering in fear of being labeled godless, elitist pinkos.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
Yes, but America wasn’t ready to elect a black person until 2008, either. (That didn’t mean it was “oppression” that kept Jesse Jackson from getting the nod in 1988; just a lot of shortsighted, stupid primary voters who thoughts Dukakis had a better shot in the general.) The curve is shifting. Always is. Wasn’t it 1960 when America elected its first Catholic President? That wasn’t too long ago…
Little Dreamer
@JK:
Because they believe that one of our presidents is going to be antichrist and they have to make sure he doesn’t get through, even though they worship their own antichrist and don’t even realize it.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@JK:
Stupid people like to vote based on stupid criteria.
One time the Onion had a horoscope which said words to the effect of, “Your well-thought-out, carefully considered vote for one of the candidates will be canceled out by a hairdresser who voted for the other candidate because she prefers his taste in neckties.”
Democracy doesn’t require that the voters be well-educated, unfortunately.
Little Dreamer
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
There’s a difference between races (which increase with numerous children – as you probably already realize minorities when they vote together are becoming a bigger vote block than white caucasians), and biblical prophecy.
Biblical prophecy is a different matter altogether. It has to do with Christian prophecy and trying to stop a certain personality from becoming the ruler of the free world. There are vast fears in the Christian camp regarding the religious beliefs of our president. That is the one thing of the utmost importance to them. Their afterlife depends on them fighting against such a person.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
Yes but I think Obama is a game changer. Jesse Jackson helped to blaze the trail, but he didn’t “resonate” with middle of the road voters the way Obama does.
I liked Jesse back in 1984. But he wasn’t ready for prime time, at all.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
Probably true. I don’t know, I was only 10 during that election. My Dad was livid that Jackson didn’t get the nod. To this day, he says his vote for Dukakis was the hardest vote he’s ever cast.
If we were going to lose anyway, we should’ve just run Jackson. Dared the GOP to be as racist in public as they are in private.
JK
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
Are you willing to consider voting for an atheist candidate who shares your opinion on 7 out of the 8 most important issues for you? The Atheist candidate’s opponent is a Christian who shares your opinion on 1 out of the 8 most important issues for you.
If you would consider voting for the atheist candidate, do you wish to modify, amend, revise, or update your previous statement which read
ThymeZoneThePlumber
I like this about them. Keeping them focussed on stupid, crazy shit makes it easier to rope a dope them at election time. If I have to work against a large bloc of voters, I would prefer that they be batshit crazy.
Hey, get your 6000-year-old Earth Buttons Right Here!
Heh.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@JK:
I never said I was a Christian. Nor did I say that I was a wingnut. Nor did I say that I was “most people.” I, personally, would vote for whatever candidate was most liberal. I could give a fuck less about their religion, their looks, their personal hygiene, or any number of other stupid-as-fuck factors that most Americans consider when casting their votes. But my point still stands. Most people are Christian, and most people like voting for candidates who are Christians like them.
Try to distinguish between the point, and the person making the point.
Little Dreamer
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
That might make sense if they had any clue what they were doing, but they don’t. They wouldn’t know the antichrist if he wrote (and bungled) the most widely read book in the history of the entire world.
Little Dreamer
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
and here we completely agree. Isn’t life grand?
Death By Mosquito Truck
I imagine the NTSB will have some questions for you folks when they investigate this thread.
Adrienne
@Little Dreamer: My answer to that is irrelevant. There is no OFFICIAL religious test mandated by law. If religion is something that THE PEOPLE choose to utilize in judging someone, that’s just democracy – even if you disagree with the criteria. Individuals have the right to vote for whoever the hell they want using whatever criteria they see fit. If a large portion of those individuals choose to use religion as part of their criteria so be it. But candidates who do not meet those criteria are not legally bound from running. You’re arguing from completely shallow ground. You just don’t seem to like democracy – you seem to have issues with anyone who might choose something different from you – which makes you NO different than the religious crazies you claim to have no respect for. You don’t mind authoritarianism – you just want it to be YOUR brand.
JK
I eagerly await the day of the presidential election results that prove your defeatist assertion to be dead wrong.
The sooner this nation breaks the habit of imposing a religious test for presidential candidates the better off we will all be.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
Seems to me that a lot of voters just grab onto the “xtian” thing as a lazy way to screen candidates. Okay, he is a practicing xtian, he goes to a church like me, hangs around with people who think a lot like me, isn’t out to screw over people like me. Check!
I am for loving thy neighbor, the Golden Rule, a lot of Xtian Lite stuff. I am not convinced that a person named Jesus ever lived or performed any miracles. Or rose from the daid where Pore Judd laid his haid. Or any of that fairy tale mumbo jumbo. If xtianity is about how people treat each other, and it’s humane, then I am probably for it. Otherwise, I am agin it. I don’t believe in the Easter Bunny or in Original Sin either.
But I think a lot of people who are not far from my attitude call themselves Xtians who don’t really believe in the Jesus myth.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Little Dreamer:
So that’s where my theory of democracy as a learning organization (apologies to Peter Senge) kicks in. The fools may vote for whomever, but when it all falls down, we correct our course and get it right.
In other words, Bush, then Obama.
gex
@Death By Mosquito Truck: You are on fire today.
Adrienne
@gex: Did you read all of my comments on this thread? From that little screed, it doesn’t seem as though you did. You are arguing against a strawman because you damn sure aren’t addressing any of the points I made.
YOU are talking about the religious crazies who seek to impose their brand of morality on everyone else. I’m not defending them. I very clearly distinguished the people I am defending from the Jesus freaks. You are doing EXACTLY what the nutjobs do – painting all ppl of faith with the same brush. That’s not fair to the ppl of faith who don’t identify with the brand of Christianity that you (rightly) deplore. Lumping them all in together and painting them with the same brush is simply not fair. Don’t pre-judge all Christians by the extremists. That’s all I’m asking. It’s not helpful to your cause – a cause which I support wholeheartedly by the way.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@gex:
The smoke and flames are from his pants.
JUST KIDDING I SWEAR TO GOD. Saw a straight line and cashed it in, that’s all.
Little Dreamer
@Adrienne:
Well, of course there’s no official religious test, because we already have on in the form of faith forums.
The problem isn’t that people will vote based on religion, but that people who don’t believe in religion are given a way to state that without having support pulled away from him. Are you seriously under the impression that if an atheist said “I do not believe in God” that there would not be a cocentrated effort and a major media blitz lasting for days because of that one statement? That person would be railroaded into ending their candidacy. If you think that’s not how it would go, then I think you are being obtuse.
You stating that I would want an authoritarian government is laughable. I supported Barack Obama, and I told TZ that I supported Barack Obama despite the fact that his faith worried me a bit. This conversation occured IRL when Hillary was still looking to be the favorite. I stated it to him in exactly that way, if he’s still on this thread, I invite him to vouch for or deny that I made that statement.
Adrienne
@ThymeZoneThePlumber: Bingo. And they (and even ppl who may be a little further toward the Jesus end) don’t deserve to be painted with the same brush as the hyperdivisive, non-believers and those whose faith lies elsewhere as immoral beings damned to hell, etc etc shallow brand of Christianity that seeks to have everyone relinquish their freedom of religion in favor of their brand.
Little Dreamer
@JK:
I agree, but half the people on this thread don’t even believe we have instituted a religious test because it isn’t an official go before judges thing, or something like that.
No, they just have to go on tv in front of the electorate and say “I’m a Christian” and state all the reasons that they think their beliefs will better the nation.
Little Dreamer
@Adrienne:
It’s so nice that you are agreeing with someone who has done almost NO religious study at all (and he will tell you so). It’s also funny that you seem to have decided that I’m completely wrong and yet he’ll tell you that I’m more versed in religion than anyone else he’s ever met.
The Beatitudes are NOT religious, they are humane practices which were stated by a religious leader, nothing more, nothing less. Anyone should be expected to treat their fellow humans in such a way, Christian or not. None of the Beatitudes state you have to be a Christian to do these things. Do you think one has to believe in Christ to do treat others in such fashion?
The Beatitudes were placed into the Christian bible, and therefore they are considered Christian, but they are not really any such thing. They are human directives.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Little Dreamer:
Confirmed. I’ve never met anyone who has more detailed knowledge of the religious texts and background than LD.
Okay there was that one bishop guy from the Episcopal church that my parents used to hang around with, but I was too young to understand what he was talking about most of the time.
Adrienne
Huh? You can’t separate the two. Plus, you could basically say the same thing about ANY minority position so I’m not sure what your point it. There wasn’t anything barring black people from being President and when the right guy came along people who may have never voted for a black candidate before voted for him. The same thing could happen with an atheist/agnostic candidate – as long as they don’t make themselves out to be hostile to faith and those who practice it. As long as that candidate could effectively communicate what he does believe it and how that informs his world view. However, YOU seem to want them to be hostile to religion/faith in the way that you are. THAT for sure will force him/her out of the race. Tolerance is a two way street.
Little Dreamer
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
Will you also confirm that I stated to you (in the parking garage where you work, remember that conversation?) that I thought Barack Obama was the best candidate and that I would support him despite his religious beliefs, which I stated at that time worried me just a bit, and I said “so long as he keeps his religious beliefs in check, I think he’d be the best choice” – do you remember that?
Hint* it was the first time I talked to you about my serious consideration of Obama, and you told me you were thinking of voting Hillary – can you confirm or deny this conversation took place, please?
Little Dreamer
@Adrienne:
Sorry, I should have clarified, it’s not the people will or will not vote for an atheist, but that a candidate cannot get through the process. The faith forum, having an atheist state emphatically that he/she does not believe in God would create a media storm of controversy, support for fall, contributions would disappear and this person would be forced to drop out.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Little Dreamer:
All true, it was LD who moved me to switch from Shrillary to Barack, and I never regretted it. You know what they say, once you have been Barack, you will never go bock. Er, back.
But anyway, his religious utterings made me nervous at first, until I saw how smart he is and how he thinks things through. Once I saw that his religion wasn’t clouding his ability to think clearly, I had no problem with it. And I also saw that he wasn’t using his religion to shine himself up or pander. He was just saying what he thought. I liked that about him.
Little Dreamer
@Adrienne:
An atheist is already by all accounts hostile to faith just based on their disbelief in God. Any serious Christian would be compelled to not vote for him if he were placed against a Christian candidate.
gex
@Adrienne:
Really? Like the ~ 60% of people who are against gay marriage? Or the entire “family values” GOP? Yes, the crazies are a small percentage, but the moderate religious folks join in or add credibility to the crazies arguments. And your complaint, that I responded to, was that it would be so awful to have these people “adversely labeled”. Whatever.
Pity these poor religious people who get lumped in with religious crazies but have in many other respects done nothing in the public sphere that makes it possible for non-believers to tell the difference between the two.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Little Dreamer:
Off topic, but are we on for dinner?
Adrienne
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT I AM NOT RELIGIOUS?
I’m agnostic, so OBVIOUSLY I don’t believe that one has to be a Christian or a person of faith in anyway to be a good person and treat others with care, dignity and respect. I do it every day.
Further, I don’t think you are “completely wrong”. I just think that you are wrong in broadly painting ppl of faith with one brush. They aren’t all the same. They don’t all seek to impose a new Christian world order. For instance, my mother is a deaconness, yet she supports gay marriage. She understands the humanity of gays and recognizes the universal nature of their want for love and affection. Some ppl understand and even appreciate the difference btw personal faith and imposing those tenets on society. My mother is one of those people and so painting her disparagingly for no other reason than her being a Christian is supremely unfair.
Little Dreamer
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
Yes. ;)
Little Dreamer
@Adrienne:
Does the Christian faith force it’s followers to believe in Hell?
Does the Christian faith force it’s followers to believe that they are born in sin?
Does the Christian faith force it’s believers to believe that they can only be saved by the blood of Christ?
Does the Christian faith force it’s believers to believe that anyone that doesn’t believe the above is an antichrist?
If you say no, would you please cite scripture that back this? I can state many that say exactly what’s above.
What you are “defending” is lukewarm Christianity, which is addressed in the book of Revelation, Church of Loadicea to be exact.
There’s your answer.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Would we save time by distinguishing between the “Christians” who are actually ideological activists, versus the broader “Christians” who are just casual observers of generally Western religous practice and whose views and politics cover a wide range?
I fall in the foot of the curve in that latter group. Toward the very edge. Over there in the corner. Behind the post.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Little Dreamer:
Are we talking about “Xtianity,” or organized religions which profess Xtianity?
Little Dreamer
@Adrienne:
There are many ways of bringing people Jesus. Your mother’s choice in allowing gays to marry is just her way of doing what she thinks is fair (and I admire her for that) but with the hope that her hospitality will be a good ministry for Christian fellowship at the same time. All Christians think this way, don’t say they don’t. It’s a tenet of the faith that Christians are to tell/show others about Christ’s love and savior services, there is no getting around that.
Little Dreamer
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
I’ve been dating a Christian for two and a half years and never knew? WHAT?
What makes you a Christian, TZ? Do you believe Jesus lived and died for your sins? Do you believe he’s taking you to Heaven? Do you believe if he doesn’t take you to Heaven that instead you’ll go to Hell?
That is who I am talking about TZ, people who consider themselves SAVED BY THE LAMB.
Adrienne
It’s a basic tenet of the faith to exhibit (or at least try to exhibit) those qualities. It’s a basic tenet of the faith to show others the power of Christ’s love in and through your own life in the hopes that people will turn to Christ for that love in their own life. Certain sects have made it their business to turn those tenets into proselytizing and demonization of the “other”. Not all Christians subscribe to that school. That’s my point.
And if true, what’s wrong with that? Yes, she wants to bring people to Jesus through her good deeds and fairness – but on their own volition. But, she doesn’t seek to bring people to Jesus by force or by having government force people into behaving as she would have them to behave based on her religious beliefs. She wants people to choose Christ for themselves. That’s the way religion should operate in a healthy, pluralistic, democracy.
@ThymeZoneThePlumber: That’s all I’ve been trying to do all along.
Little Dreamer
What if bringing people to the faith is actually hurting the people you think you are helping? Do you think that proselytizing is a fair thing to do? What if the one who you state is actually not who he says he is? He didn’t fulfill all the prophecies of the Messiah. He actually lied more than a few times times in the Bible. He teaches in secret after stating he did nothing in secret. I could go on and on… he states he will not be going to a celebration and then sneaks off later when no one is looking. He treated his mother in ways that one would think were very cruel (stating”who is my mother?”)… he did a lot that would not comport with a real son of God.
What if he is “the bright and morning star”… “sun of the morning”… Lucifer“?
DanSmoot'sGhost
@Little Dreamer:
I think my #182, 4:34 post describes me pretty well. I don’t pass any Xtian tests but I do subscribe to a general worldview that is grounded in pop judeo-xtian western culture stuff. The bouncers would let me into the Xtian nightclub, but after last call, I am probably going to hell.
Morrigan21
As someone said, youngsters are leaving organized religion in droves, and more power to them for making their own way. I think this emphasis on organized religion is both generational (to a degree) and regional. I’m in Texas, in the district that brought you the joy of Tom DeLay. I understand the extreme rabidity of some of the “faithful,” but also I have seen how people of faith can do much, much good in the world. I also have friends who are athiests who are a heck of a lot more gentle to their fellow man that some Christians I know. When someone is walking the tightrope without a belief in a spiritual safety net, it tends to strip a lot of BS out of their moral compass.
I was raised by a professor of comparative religion who is a deist. My mother is a Lutheran, my brother is a Buddhist, husband is an Episcopalian, best friend is an athiest. I’m a mutt of beliefs and traditions that don’t fit any kind of box, with my core beliefs being captured best in particle physics, really. So, I don’t give a damn if people don’t believe in any kind of spirituality or deity, worship Cthulhu, live their lives focused on Christ, try to emulate The Buddha, burn incense to Shiva, or dance under oak trees in the moonlight.
Goes both ways. It rankles me hearing an athiest call people who believe in “something else” deluded idiots just as much as it bothers me to have the religious right shove their beliefs down my throat. Just live and let live, people.
DanSmoot'sGhost
B-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-ah, humbug!
Little Dreamer
@DanSmoot’sGhost:
You mean the Beatitudes, which I stated further above have nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with being humane?
Love one another… feed the hungry… clothe the poor… etc?
There is nothing in there that is exclusive to Christianity. It’s only the fact that the Beatitudes are found in the Bible that they seem to be grounded in Christianity. One does not need to pray to God to do these things. One does not need to profess the name of Jesus to do these things. One does not need to drink the blood of Jesus to do these things. One does not need to believe in Heaven or Hell or original sin to do these things. There is nothing particularly Christian about the concept of being humane to humans.
DanSmoot'sGhost
Yes, pretty much. That attitude lets me hang with the Xtians and they never suspect how full of shit I think they really are. I rank the literal Biblical version of Xtianity right up there with the Flintstones for veracity. Okay, that’s an insult to Hanna-Barbara, I know.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Little Dreamer:
You don’t HAVE to do anything. You don’t HAVE to state that you’re a Christian. You could say anything. You could, if you chose, say that you think religion is a bunch of idiotic mumbo-jumbo for blind fools too cowardly to face reality. But guess what? Those blind fools are most of the electorate. And if they don’t vote for you after that, that’s democracy. That’s not a state-mandated religious test. That’s a voter-mandated religious test. The difference is the difference between tyranny and democracy.