Liberal Anger At Religion

very interesting topic. I think a large part of it is in response to the religious right, who have certainly given religion a far wise name than it had already earned on it’s own. I’ve also found that the god I believe in bears little to no resemblane to the god my atheist and agnostic friends don’t believe me, which I’m sure accounts for some of the disconnect. Anyway, it will be interesting to see the comments.

It’s nice to see this finally get in print. As a pentecostal Christian and Obama supporter I am frequently appalled at the arrogant, caustic, and ignorant crap that people on the left spew out.It’s one of the reasons that the religious right has been able to maintain it’s stranglehold for so long. When people like me look at the left, sure, we may want an honest federal government, progressive taxes, social justice and whatnot, but killing God seems to be the price of entry.If the left could figure out that there are a lot of Christians out there who agree with them about a lot of stuff, then maybe we could make progress and make this a better place to live.That, or we could just argue over gay marriage and abortion for 40 more years.

Lee, I’m always “caught off guard” by people who want to shove their religious views down my throat, “pray for me” because I’m an atheist, and insist that I HAVE to believe in god or I’ll burn in hell. George Carlin’s “Religion is Bullshit” pretty much sums it up for me. If people want to have faith or whatever that’s fine by me – they just need to keep it out of my face and out of my laws. I am FED UP with people wanting me to live MY life according to their religious morals, ethics, etc.As far as the tolerance and openness we “liberals” (it’s like using the “F” word nowadays, apparently) are known for, you gotta give to get, if you know what I mean. I’m past being tolerant of wingnuts and “religious” (i.e., Christian *sarcasm*) folks, quite frankly.

I agree with J. The religious right has taken the role of trying to infuse religion into politics and it may just come across to secularists as wrong to bring religion into the mix.My own theory is that when coming to Bob’s blog, or going to the Huffington Post, the main expectation is for political discourse and inserting religion into what otherwise should be a separation of church and state (especially on liberal blogs) may be offputting to some.That’s just my two cents I’m tossing into the offertory basket. Anyone else?

I have no problem with religion other than the fact that religious people:1) Cause wars;2) Try to convert me;3) Like to be an influence in people’s bedrooms;4) Interfere with a woman’s right to manage her own body;5) Fuck with my government.That’s all. No big deal. What’s to debate?

I agree with J and Carl. The religious right in this country has taken what should be personal and turned it into fascism. That may be harsh for some, this is my opinion. We have had church/state separation for over 200 years. We have based our laws on Judeo/Christian ideals, but there has always been separation. Until Ronald Reagan came along. Then bushco came and blew that separation to hell (pun intended).My problem is not that people believe or don’t believe, I personally don’t care as long as it isn’t forced into my life or body.Separation of church and state should never be diluted, we have learned that. We need to return to that principle.

My internet-friend James Huber said it best with the following essay:—————————-Religion is Like Wine:Too much will kill you for sure.Long before that it makes you stupid, tedious to have around, and a danger to yourself and others.In moderation it makes many people happy, which is reason enough for it, I guess. Too bad even a little makes some people mean. It just makes me sleepy.Some claim it has health benefits. Maybe so, but I can’t help wondering if grape juice would work as well.If you enjoy it, and can handle it, go for it. But I won’t be joining you, and I’d rather not have to say so twice.Really, drink up. I’ll be happy to have you around until you get annoying. Just remember, if you turn into a loud-mouthed asshole or start a fight, the wine is no excuse.Finally, if you ever find it’s ruining your life, and can’t quit by yourself, I’m here to help.

I think the anger probably comes from the fact that as liberals we aren’t allowed to be religious supposedly.I have constantly been told that since I am a member of the Democratic party, and since I am pro-choice therefore I can’t be a Christian. I am a sinner, I will never be allowed to enter heaven, and the list just goes on and on. It caused a huge row for me last year, and it ended up with me disavowing my church and my pastor, and my religion.After seeing the vitriol coming from the so called Christian’s over the last year, when they are discussing the faith of the President, his stance on Choice, the stances on marriage and the way they have acted over the assassination of Dr. Tiller, who was acting in a legal and responsible manner, and at the time of his assassination was at CHURCH, how can you say that we are angry and intolerant?

joshdobbinWine? Religion? Over my head for sure.I had some grape juice served in a church. They said is was the “blood of Jesus”. Tasted like grape juice.

I also like what Jefferson wrote, when addressing why someone may have venom when discussing the doings of religious folks and their attempts to influence policy. Eternal hostility.Keep in mind when he says he has “sworn upon the Altar of God eternal hostility…” he’s speaking to his good friend Benjamin Rush, who is a devout Christian. It is, after a fashion, a sop thrown. Jefferson was a proponent of “Nature’s God,” which is Deist for the idea of the underlying, not necessarily mystic (and certainly non-participatory) order of the Universe.————I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at presentdispose of.I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it would reconcile the _genus irritabile vatum_ who are all in arms against me.Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro’ the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes.And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion.

@ joshdobbin:Love the Religion is like Wine post – have saved it for future reference. Thx!

I was not brought up in any religion, but my mother, who calls herself a ‘recovered Catholic’, taught me the basic tenets of Christianity and Judaism without criticism or judgment, which I have only in the last few years have begun to appreciate as having come at enormous cost to herself and her newfound principles. Religion is learned, not taught, and so is tolerance. As an anonymous person once said, “Let’s all try to love each other more, and begin again.”

The religious right has done a lot of damage to Christianity. A lot of damage.In today’s world you have the Mormons, Catholics, Southern Baptists that have shown so much disrespect, hatefulness and hypocrisy towards almost everyone except their own groups that the distaste is instantaneously vomit inducing. God is their main scape goat for every rotten miserable thing they do and say.Moderate and more liberal Christians have a lot of work ahead of them. Cleaning up after the religious right is going be as bad as cleaning up the economy.The media is no friend to moderate nor liberal Christians. Neither is the religious right.

Lee,No Josh for awhile. He is trying to conform to his new role in life. In other words, if I continue to be a liberal extremist I will have a very short and miserable career. I need to get a handle on my politics and understand that normal people really just don’t give a shit. Same thing with my religious point of view. But thank you for the offer. Not to mention, “Ghost Hunters” is on tonight and I need to unwind after a long day of swallowing my politics and religious hatred.

SpoonAs soon as the last sentence happens…. count me in. This is not the religion of today.

@Annette: That’s a shitty personal experience. I would certainly never tell you you’re not a Christian. We all do a lot of extrapolating and I think sometimes it muffles our messages.Frankly, I think we’ve all gotten lazy. “religious” and “Christian” shorthand for crazy wingnut. “liberal” and “atheist” became shorthand for terrorist who wants to force you to have an abortion while smoking pot. Our political and general discourse has lost all nuance.I am not the Pope. I am not Rick Warren. I am not NOM. I am not Rev. Wright. I am a Catholic. I am rabidly pro-choice. I am for marriage equality. I am hopeful for meaningful health care reform. And I see no good in letting someone else tell me what I can or can’t be.

Just saying – if you’re GOING to have the abortion, might as well be smoking pot.

I was virulently anti-religion when I was in my early twenties. Now I say (to quote John Lennon) “Whatever gets you through the night/ It’s alright, it’s alright.”Religion angered me most during 2004. “We lost because we aren’t religious enough. We have to start getting more and more pastors to speak for us. We have to develop our own liberal superchurches. I love gay people, of course, but they need to stfu so we won’t lose another election.”Democrats were literally saying this bullshit. Reverend Walter Gaddy was added to Air America’s lineup. The whole liberal community was determining where it was “going wrong” and how it could “find Jesus.” It was unbelievably disturbing to me. The chimp’s influence was reaching far and wide– this petty little malicious brat was transforming everyone.I think there is still some lingering animosity from my fellow agnostics (who, ironically by definition don’t really give a shit about this nonsense) and atheists about that period.

Also, on a more personal note.There is a venom when speaking about religion (broadly defined here as Christianity, Judaism, Islam) because I feel all of it is absolutely foul. They are formed upon and continue to propagate irrationality, backwardness, superstition, xenophobia and conflict.I also feel that subscribing to neo-nazi beliefs are foul, I also feel that the conspiracy theorists who purport that the moon landing was faked are foul.I would also, and this is not hyperbole, fight and die to make sure that anyone is free to espouse, print or publicly speak those beliefs.However, wrapped up in there is also my freedom to express my genuine violent disagreement with everything they stand for. That “some good” comes from something intrinsically bad, I think, is not enough for me to accept it as palatable.I think where you go wrong is where you assume that the liberal desire for freedom of belief for all must therefore include a happy intellectual acceptance or politeness about beliefs.This sounds like terrible passive-aggression, but it is no less true for it: I fully support ANYONE’S right to believe in disgusting, terrible, insane bullshit.I also support my own right to label it as such.As Orwell has Winston Smith write, “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.”

Lee,No Josh for awhile. He is trying to conform to his new role in life.

I don’t get what this means. Splain?

J – then, please, dear god, step up and take back your church. a lot of catholics are pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and are pretty pissed off about the fact that there are a whole lot of priests molesting kids, and even more priests covering it up. why don’t you, sane catholics, band together and speak out? let people know that not all catholics are crazy assholes.

I would just like to point out that I never argue against a straw-man concept of “god” (as applicable in most monotheistic religions). Because, by almost every theologian’s admission, religion and “god” are outside of the realm of science, I can only rely on the historical record of the interpretations of books like the Bible or the Qur’an. Starting at their inception, and continuing to this day, the majority of proselytes of the big three (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) picture a god much more like the one I argue against (the concept developed by medieval philosophers that still thrives to this day) than the one that you and your more liberal coreligionists believe in. I have no argument against any deity who has been reduced from ‘sky wizard’ to ‘spiritual therapist’ because there is not much left to argue against.Adding: there is nothing venomous about offering my criticism of what I believe to be rather ridiculous beliefs. I don’t just go around telling people that there beliefs are stupid, but when religion is brought up, I am not ashamed to voice my opinion on the subject.I am not angry at religion. I am angry at the wall of respect built up around it, which causes people to label criticism with the (moronic) term ‘dogmatic atheism.’/me wonders how long before the link to Pharyngula is forcibly removed from the blogroll.

I would just like to point out that I never argue against a straw-man concept of “god” (as applicable in most monotheistic religions). Because, by almost every theologian’s admission, religion and “god” are outside of the realm of science, I can only rely on the historical record of the interpretations of books like the Bible or the Qur’an. Starting at their inception, and continuing to this day, the majority of proselytes of the big three (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) picture a god much more like the one I argue against (the concept developed by medieval philosophers that still thrives to this day) than the one that you and your more liberal coreligionists believe in. I have no argument against any deity who has been reduced from ‘sky wizard’ to ‘spiritual therapist’ because there is not much left to argue against.Adding: there is nothing venomous about offering my criticism of what I believe to be rather ridiculous beliefs. I don’t just go around telling people that there beliefs are stupid, but when religion is brought up, I am not ashamed to voice my opinion on the subject.I am not angry at religion. I am angry at the wall of respect built up around it, which causes people to label criticism with the (moronic) term ‘dogmatic atheism.’/me wonders how long before the link to Pharyngula is forcibly removed from the blogroll.

I also feel that the conspiracy theorists who purport that the moon landing was faked are foul.Posted by: joshdobbin at June 3, 2009 7:41 PMYou reminded me of something funny about myself: I don’t really hate most religious people, yet I hate 9/11 conspiracy nuts. Why? The 9/11 people should know better. We now have evidence that totally delegitimizes every single one of their claims, yet they cling to it because it’s their faith. I don’t really have empirical evidence to refute the claim that Jesus was resurrected then ascended to wherever. I can tell you that they found what they believe are his remains and his name was inscribed alongside people who knew him and were related to him. But we aren’t 100% certain about it regardless. I can tell you that the Muslims claim that Muhammed ascended to wherever in a similar fashion and the same tales about Jesus’ ability to pass through walls, turn water into win etc. were used in religions before Christianity. But again, I’m not 100% certain of anything.I’m 150% certain that the 9/11 loons are wrong, and they are disgracing the memories of the people who died during that day.

I also feel that the conspiracy theorists who purport that the moon landing was faked are foul.Posted by: joshdobbin at June 3, 2009 7:41 PMYou reminded me of something funny about myself: I don’t really hate most religious people, yet I hate 9/11 conspiracy nuts. Why? The 9/11 people should know better. We now have evidence that totally delegitimizes every single one of their claims, yet they cling to it because it’s their faith. I don’t really have empirical evidence to refute the claim that Jesus was resurrected then ascended to wherever. I can tell you that they found what they believe are his remains and his name was inscribed alongside people who knew him and were related to him. But we aren’t 100% certain about it regardless. I can tell you that the Muslims claim that Muhammed ascended to wherever in a similar fashion and the same tales about Jesus’ ability to pass through walls, turn water into win etc. were used in religions before Christianity. But again, I’m not 100% certain of anything.I’m 150% certain that the 9/11 loons are wrong, and they are disgracing the memories of the people who died during that day.

It’s rather like, if you think back in terms of animal evolution, an animal that’s grown an incredible carapace around it, such as a tortoise—that’s a great survival strategy because nothing can get through it; or maybe like a poisonous fish that nothing will come close to, which therefore thrives by keeping away any challenges to what it is it is. In the case of an idea, if we think ‘Here is an idea that is protected by holiness or sanctity’, what does it mean? Why should it be that it’s perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows, but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe, no, that’s holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that for any other reason other than that we’ve just got used to doing so? There’s no other reason at all, it’s just one of those things that crept into being and once that loop gets going it’s very, very powerful. So, we are used to not challenging religious ideas but it’s very interesting how much of a furore Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you’re not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn’t be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn’t be.

Also, I linked my name to Matt’s blog in the last comment. Weird!

It’s rather like, if you think back in terms of animal evolution, an animal that’s grown an incredible carapace around it, such as a tortoise—that’s a great survival strategy because nothing can get through it; or maybe like a poisonous fish that nothing will come close to, which therefore thrives by keeping away any challenges to what it is it is. In the case of an idea, if we think ‘Here is an idea that is protected by holiness or sanctity’, what does it mean? Why should it be that it’s perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows, but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe, no, that’s holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that for any other reason other than that we’ve just got used to doing so? There’s no other reason at all, it’s just one of those things that crept into being and once that loop gets going it’s very, very powerful. So, we are used to not challenging religious ideas but it’s very interesting how much of a furore Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you’re not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn’t be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn’t be.

Also, I linked my name to Matt’s blog in the last comment. Weird!

@josh:That would be GItheJosh, referring to himself, not YouTheJosh.Speaking of Teh Joshdobbin: Are any of the top Google searches for that name actually you? Your writing intrigues me, and I was checking to see if you had a site/blog.

I’ll stop spamming (sorry, I re-read all the comments again–sheesh) but I just wanted to heartily co-sign on this:

I think where you go wrong is where you assume that the liberal desire for freedom of belief for all must therefore include a happy intellectual acceptance or politeness about beliefs.

And double-god-dammit, I messed up my blockquote on the large paragraph (tortoise!). That’s Douglas Adams.

And double-god-dammit, I messed up my blockquote on the large paragraph (tortoise!). That’s Douglas Adams.

“I think where you go wrong is where you assume that the liberal desire for freedom of belief for all must therefore include a happy intellectual acceptance or politeness about beliefs.”You’re opposed to POLITENESS? Really and truly?Even the basic politeness of actually listening to what other people are saying?That explains a lot….

“I think where you go wrong is where you assume that the liberal desire for freedom of belief for all must therefore include a happy intellectual acceptance or politeness about beliefs.”You’re opposed to POLITENESS? Really and truly?Even the basic politeness of actually listening to what other people are saying?That explains a lot….

leave it to Lee to take one word out of a whole paragraph of legitimate sentiment and make an attack out of it, while ironically arguing in favor of politeness.

leave it to Lee to take one word out of a whole paragraph of legitimate sentiment and make an attack out of it, while ironically arguing in favor of politeness.

Against mandatory politeness. At least be honest, Lee.

Against mandatory politeness. At least be honest, Lee.

@josh:That would be GItheJosh, referring to himself, not YouTheJosh.

addendum: Though I’m unsure exactly which Josh it is that Lee originally happens to be referring to, regarding calling in to the radio show.

@josh:That would be GItheJosh, referring to himself, not YouTheJosh.

addendum: Though I’m unsure exactly which Josh it is that Lee originally happens to be referring to, regarding calling in to the radio show.

Religion or lack, like abortion, ought to be a personal choice. No point in discussing someone else’s decision.

Religion or lack, like abortion, ought to be a personal choice. No point in discussing someone else’s decision.

I’ll discuss it, gladly, when the person posits a blog entry for discussion.

That would be GItheJosh, referring to himself, not YouTheJosh.Speaking of Teh Joshdobbin: Are any of the top Google searches for that name actually you? Your writing intrigues me, and I was checking to see if you had a site/blog.

Ha! Yes, that’s me.I think I will now, when introducing myself to people I meet, say, “Hi. I’m Josh Dobbin, the same one from the top of the Google searches for “josh dobbin.”Does that make me the most famous Josh Dobbin? Or the geekiest? I hope the answer is YES.Actually, back when MySpace was all hip and new, I found that there’s a 17 year old kid named Josh Dobbin who was eerily similar in general attitude and affect as I was/am, and I wrote to him, offering my services as an older, more experienced Josh Dobbin, to offer him helpful tips on avoiding the pitfalls of Josh-Dobbining. I was pleased with myself (ourselves!) when I signed it,Similarly,Josh DobbinBut yeah. That’s me. I’ve got an old site I never update with a lot of short stories/essays/cartoons called http://www.itsthecatsass.com.It is firmly rooted in, like, 2001-design. At some point, I’m going to do a more modern re-design.The most recent thing I wrote isn’t linked from the homepage, which I really like (but I’m way too close to it, so I’m hardly objective) is:http://www.itsthecatsass.com/roomate/

That would be GItheJosh, referring to himself, not YouTheJosh.Speaking of Teh Joshdobbin: Are any of the top Google searches for that name actually you? Your writing intrigues me, and I was checking to see if you had a site/blog.

Ha! Yes, that’s me.I think I will now, when introducing myself to people I meet, say, “Hi. I’m Josh Dobbin, the same one from the top of the Google searches for “josh dobbin.”Does that make me the most famous Josh Dobbin? Or the geekiest? I hope the answer is YES.Actually, back when MySpace was all hip and new, I found that there’s a 17 year old kid named Josh Dobbin who was eerily similar in general attitude and affect as I was/am, and I wrote to him, offering my services as an older, more experienced Josh Dobbin, to offer him helpful tips on avoiding the pitfalls of Josh-Dobbining. I was pleased with myself (ourselves!) when I signed it,Similarly,Josh DobbinBut yeah. That’s me. I’ve got an old site I never update with a lot of short stories/essays/cartoons called http://www.itsthecatsass.com.It is firmly rooted in, like, 2001-design. At some point, I’m going to do a more modern re-design.The most recent thing I wrote isn’t linked from the homepage, which I really like (but I’m way too close to it, so I’m hardly objective) is:http://www.itsthecatsass.com/roomate/

I’m glad to see something like this posted on a liberal blog. I’m a Democrat, a liberal, and not particularly religious, but it always amazes me how grotesquely intolerant and condescending left-wingers can be toward religion. They basically lump all religions together with the most extreme right-wing, science-denying fundamentalists and refuse to make any qualitative distinctions between various faiths at all. Instead of explaining their position calmly and rationally, they resort to inane, adolescent shit like the Flying Spaghetti Monster (which, I suspect, has never induced even one religious person to become an atheist).

I’m glad to see something like this posted on a liberal blog. I’m a Democrat, a liberal, and not particularly religious, but it always amazes me how grotesquely intolerant and condescending left-wingers can be toward religion. They basically lump all religions together with the most extreme right-wing, science-denying fundamentalists and refuse to make any qualitative distinctions between various faiths at all. Instead of explaining their position calmly and rationally, they resort to inane, adolescent shit like the Flying Spaghetti Monster (which, I suspect, has never induced even one religious person to become an atheist).

I don’t think I pulled the term ‘politeness’ out of context. There was an ‘or’ before it, too.If someone wants to retract or explain that, fine. But I’m not doing anything wrong by asking whether that’s seriously what was meant.

Thank you J, but actually I am okay, I am fine with things as they are, and have just gone back to the way things were before.When I was on the road for all those years I was seldom in church anyway, so now I am just like I was in church again.. I am just tired of others saying that just because we on the left side of politics don’t see things just like the ones on the other side do means we are not as “good” as they are.No one is any better than anyone else. For either party, or any one person to believe they have a right to salvation or to Christianity or religion more so than another just really makes me ill. And by ill I mean makes me angry. That in essence makes it seem as if you are saying you are better than I am.That’s one of the biggest things I have against the entire salvation religion thing.. one person is better than another. That sets up a false standard of equality.

Thank you J, but actually I am okay, I am fine with things as they are, and have just gone back to the way things were before.When I was on the road for all those years I was seldom in church anyway, so now I am just like I was in church again.. I am just tired of others saying that just because we on the left side of politics don’t see things just like the ones on the other side do means we are not as “good” as they are.No one is any better than anyone else. For either party, or any one person to believe they have a right to salvation or to Christianity or religion more so than another just really makes me ill. And by ill I mean makes me angry. That in essence makes it seem as if you are saying you are better than I am.That’s one of the biggest things I have against the entire salvation religion thing.. one person is better than another. That sets up a false standard of equality.

Wow. I guess Lee really is ignoring me.

That makes me a saaaaad panda.

Wow. I guess Lee really is ignoring me.

That makes me a saaaaad panda.

We all have faith of some kind, faith in a big G or little g god, in humanity, in the world. Many of us have faith in all three. A conservative Christian friend was once talking to an atheist friend of mine. She said, you don’t have no faith, you have a very developed faith, that there is no God, no afterlife, no other dimensions, etc. And you have your own theology and practices which mirror the functions of religion for those who believe. He had to admit she was right. We all believe in something, and think Lee’s right, we have to retain a smidgen of doubt that we are right, to meet people where they are and really see them.”The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless yet be determined to make them otherwise.”– F. Scott Fitzgerald

We all have faith of some kind, faith in a big G or little g god, in humanity, in the world. Many of us have faith in all three. A conservative Christian friend was once talking to an atheist friend of mine. She said, you don’t have no faith, you have a very developed faith, that there is no God, no afterlife, no other dimensions, etc. And you have your own theology and practices which mirror the functions of religion for those who believe. He had to admit she was right. We all believe in something, and think Lee’s right, we have to retain a smidgen of doubt that we are right, to meet people where they are and really see them.”The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless yet be determined to make them otherwise.”– F. Scott Fitzgerald

I think where you go wrong is where you assume that the liberal desire for freedom of belief for all must therefore include a happy intellectual acceptance or politeness about beliefs.”You’re opposed to POLITENESS? Really and truly?

As an overriding imperative, when it gets in the way of stating actuality? Yes. I do not feel the need to be polite in the face of aggressive backwardness. And backwardness can be aggressive even when it is smiling and pleasant.

Even the basic politeness of actually listening to what other people are saying?

I have and do listen to what other people are saying. But if I feel that what has been said or put forward is worthy of ridicule or vehement disagreement, I don’t see it as a violation of that politeness (of hearing someone out) to ridicule a ridiculous proposition.I know that it is a facile turn of phrase to say that one’s goal should always be to disagree without becoming disagreeable, but in practice, sometimes disagreements are fundamental enough as to where an honest assessment of their implications calls for being disagreeable.”Eternal hostility,” and all that.

I think where you go wrong is where you assume that the liberal desire for freedom of belief for all must therefore include a happy intellectual acceptance or politeness about beliefs.”You’re opposed to POLITENESS? Really and truly?

As an overriding imperative, when it gets in the way of stating actuality? Yes. I do not feel the need to be polite in the face of aggressive backwardness. And backwardness can be aggressive even when it is smiling and pleasant.

Even the basic politeness of actually listening to what other people are saying?

I have and do listen to what other people are saying. But if I feel that what has been said or put forward is worthy of ridicule or vehement disagreement, I don’t see it as a violation of that politeness (of hearing someone out) to ridicule a ridiculous proposition.I know that it is a facile turn of phrase to say that one’s goal should always be to disagree without becoming disagreeable, but in practice, sometimes disagreements are fundamental enough as to where an honest assessment of their implications calls for being disagreeable.”Eternal hostility,” and all that.

I don’t think you owe politeness to someone who is being impolite. That wasn’t what was said, though – it was politeness about beliefs. And yeah – you should be polite about those….From this board, all the insults seem to come from the forces opposed to religion.

I don’t think you owe politeness to someone who is being impolite. That wasn’t what was said, though – it was politeness about beliefs. And yeah – you should be polite about those….From this board, all the insults seem to come from the forces opposed to religion.

I don’t think you owe politeness to someone who is being impolite. That wasn’t what was said, though – it was politeness about beliefs. And yeah – you should be polite about those….

Lee, I think what you may be failing to understand is that when discussing Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, Monotheism, with any of its proponents, their *beliefs* carry with them an implied “impoliteness.” It is in their texts and books, it comes along like the givens which precede a geometry problem. Just because they are unstated does not make them not-present.Christianity, as it is written, contains impolite notions. Judaism, I can tell you from personal experience, is chock full of them. Islam is of a piece with the other 2.If someone tells you they honestly believe the moon landings were faked (or 9/11 an organized inside job, whatever the craziness is), I don’t feel you need to be polite to them, if you define politeness as NOT saying you find what they hold to be true to be absurd and dangerous.

I don’t think you owe politeness to someone who is being impolite. That wasn’t what was said, though – it was politeness about beliefs. And yeah – you should be polite about those….

Lee, I think what you may be failing to understand is that when discussing Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, Monotheism, with any of its proponents, their *beliefs* carry with them an implied “impoliteness.” It is in their texts and books, it comes along like the givens which precede a geometry problem. Just because they are unstated does not make them not-present.Christianity, as it is written, contains impolite notions. Judaism, I can tell you from personal experience, is chock full of them. Islam is of a piece with the other 2.If someone tells you they honestly believe the moon landings were faked (or 9/11 an organized inside job, whatever the craziness is), I don’t feel you need to be polite to them, if you define politeness as NOT saying you find what they hold to be true to be absurd and dangerous.

Nice subtle serpent imagery there Lee. I’m sure venom was a pure hat grab.Anger towards religion is pure blowback.

Nice subtle serpent imagery there Lee. I’m sure venom was a pure hat grab.Anger towards religion is pure blowback.

I would like to hear some of these insults, as that term is quite subjective.

I would like to hear some of these insults, as that term is quite subjective.

There are extremes on both sides, frankly. While the right has its annoyingly loud believe-in-God-or-else Christians, the left has its God-are-you-kidding-me-no-sane-person-believes-in-that types, equally emphatic. But the truth is, there is a middle ground. I am a left-leaning moderate who is a Christian, a Catholic. But I choose to keep my religion separate from my politics. And isn’t that the whole idea?

There are extremes on both sides, frankly. While the right has its annoyingly loud believe-in-God-or-else Christians, the left has its God-are-you-kidding-me-no-sane-person-believes-in-that types, equally emphatic. But the truth is, there is a middle ground. I am a left-leaning moderate who is a Christian, a Catholic. But I choose to keep my religion separate from my politics. And isn’t that the whole idea?

From this board, all the insults seem to come from the forces opposed to religion

Also, Lee, I don’t want to make too much of this as it is hopefully becoming water under the bridge, but in the last thread, from my perspective, it was you who were the first to become insulting.”Do you honestly know a damn thing you’re talking about, you’re a liar, go fuck yourself,” all those things came from someone who wasn’t me.I really don’t want to re-hash that whole thing– I think the document of the thread exists on its own, and each of us has our Rashamon-like perspective on it to be sure, but it stands for anyone a bit more objective to view and draw their own conclusions as to who became disagreeable first.Clearly, you feel I did and there’s precious little I could do or say to convince you otherwise. But equally as clearly, I feel the opposite is true.YET STILL I WILL TOTALLY HUG YOU AND DELIVER A SLOPPY KISS UPON YOUR PATE WHEN/IF WE MEET. Thus is the grand, swirling mass of lovable contradiction that is me.

From this board, all the insults seem to come from the forces opposed to religion

Also, Lee, I don’t want to make too much of this as it is hopefully becoming water under the bridge, but in the last thread, from my perspective, it was you who were the first to become insulting.”Do you honestly know a damn thing you’re talking about, you’re a liar, go fuck yourself,” all those things came from someone who wasn’t me.I really don’t want to re-hash that whole thing– I think the document of the thread exists on its own, and each of us has our Rashamon-like perspective on it to be sure, but it stands for anyone a bit more objective to view and draw their own conclusions as to who became disagreeable first.Clearly, you feel I did and there’s precious little I could do or say to convince you otherwise. But equally as clearly, I feel the opposite is true.YET STILL I WILL TOTALLY HUG YOU AND DELIVER A SLOPPY KISS UPON YOUR PATE WHEN/IF WE MEET. Thus is the grand, swirling mass of lovable contradiction that is me.

In the religion I dig, your politics – your actions and public positions – should go along with your religion.

In the religion I dig, your politics – your actions and public positions – should go along with your religion.

why isn’t there a call for being tolerant to those who feel religion is a personal, private matter? Maybe the vehement reaction is due to a lack of politeness on the part of those who post that they feel sorry for non-religious people, which is in itself “an attitude that is dogmatic, condescending and bullying.”

why isn’t there a call for being tolerant to those who feel religion is a personal, private matter? Maybe the vehement reaction is due to a lack of politeness on the part of those who post that they feel sorry for non-religious people, which is in itself “an attitude that is dogmatic, condescending and bullying.”

Lee, et al,I’m pro faith…once you’ve reached the end of logic. I believe liberals who have faith should be heard, there are more of us than is credited. But people like myself, aren’t the squeaky wheels, the extremists are (either left or right). People like myself need to be heard…to speak out in a polite but insistent way or we will never find a middle ground on social issues. I believe failure to be able to talk, rationally and with respect from both sides of the aisle, is the beginning of the end for us as a country.

Lee, et al,I’m pro faith…once you’ve reached the end of logic. I believe liberals who have faith should be heard, there are more of us than is credited. But people like myself, aren’t the squeaky wheels, the extremists are (either left or right). People like myself need to be heard…to speak out in a polite but insistent way or we will never find a middle ground on social issues. I believe failure to be able to talk, rationally and with respect from both sides of the aisle, is the beginning of the end for us as a country.

I would like to point out two things.

1. “Atheist extremism,” from what I can tell, seems to be defined as saying naughty things about religion. “Right-wing extremism,” from what I can tell, seems to be defined as shooting abortion doctors or blowing one’s self up to murder. Just sayin’!

2. Throughout recorded history, blasphemy has been a crime punishable by imprisonment, torture and/or death. Death sentences were carried out. To this day, blasphemy (and even converting to another religion) remains punishable in some places. Death sentences are carried out. So, I beg your pardon, for I am making up for their lost time.

I would like to point out two things.

1. “Atheist extremism,” from what I can tell, seems to be defined as saying naughty things about religion. “Right-wing extremism,” from what I can tell, seems to be defined as shooting abortion doctors or blowing one’s self up to murder. Just sayin’!

2. Throughout recorded history, blasphemy has been a crime punishable by imprisonment, torture and/or death. Death sentences were carried out. To this day, blasphemy (and even converting to another religion) remains punishable in some places. Death sentences are carried out. So, I beg your pardon, for I am making up for their lost time.

@Annette: I co-sign that post@fe: I hear you. For me, I think there are 2 things working against it (both of which we clearly need to get over). One being the associations with the crazies have gotten so strong that it’s hard to get more than “I’m Catholic” out. I mean, look at Notre Dame. Maybe two catholics associated with the school cared, nearly all supported Pres. Obama coming, the valedictorian even said so OUT LOUD, but everything you heard was about NotreDame’s controversial decision.The other part is, and I think this came up in a thread a while back, but I really do believe in a separation of church and state. And I have yet to figure out how sane religious people can speak out in the way that is needed and keep religion a personal thing. But clearly things have gone too far. And I really think the Catholic church at least is coming close to a reckoning.

@Annette: I co-sign that post@fe: I hear you. For me, I think there are 2 things working against it (both of which we clearly need to get over). One being the associations with the crazies have gotten so strong that it’s hard to get more than “I’m Catholic” out. I mean, look at Notre Dame. Maybe two catholics associated with the school cared, nearly all supported Pres. Obama coming, the valedictorian even said so OUT LOUD, but everything you heard was about NotreDame’s controversial decision.The other part is, and I think this came up in a thread a while back, but I really do believe in a separation of church and state. And I have yet to figure out how sane religious people can speak out in the way that is needed and keep religion a personal thing. But clearly things have gone too far. And I really think the Catholic church at least is coming close to a reckoning.

Kyle – you’re comparing ‘atheist extremism’ to ‘right wing extremism.If you want to compare right and left wing extremism – both are violent, both have plenty of bloody examples.Comparing atheist vs. theist extremism is difficult because atheism isn’t a positive position with a creed or code, it’s a lack of belief. Plus the numbers are so out of line – many many more theists. And – it’s also widely agreed that the killing done in the name of religion is usually completely in contradiction to religion…and often for political or personal reasons, anyway…

Kyle – you’re comparing ‘atheist extremism’ to ‘right wing extremism.If you want to compare right and left wing extremism – both are violent, both have plenty of bloody examples.Comparing atheist vs. theist extremism is difficult because atheism isn’t a positive position with a creed or code, it’s a lack of belief. Plus the numbers are so out of line – many many more theists. And – it’s also widely agreed that the killing done in the name of religion is usually completely in contradiction to religion…and often for political or personal reasons, anyway…

You’re correct in pointing out my error. “Fundamentalist” was my intended word choice there, but I posted before finishing my edits (how many times does everyone here reword a post, on average? Eight? Twelve?). “Theist” is an even better word choice.As far as killing being contradictory to the religions; much of it really is. But the belief that the books are literal is dangerous, because the most popular holy books say some pretty horrendous things.

You’re correct in pointing out my error. “Fundamentalist” was my intended word choice there, but I posted before finishing my edits (how many times does everyone here reword a post, on average? Eight? Twelve?). “Theist” is an even better word choice.As far as killing being contradictory to the religions; much of it really is. But the belief that the books are literal is dangerous, because the most popular holy books say some pretty horrendous things.

Hurl time!Where do you, oh so kind and just religious types, hide when the bat-shit right is going off? All I hear is silence…. until a blog like this. Is the reason that you are totally afraid to express yourself on a right wing blog? Might go to Hell?

Hurl time!Where do you, oh so kind and just religious types, hide when the bat-shit right is going off? All I hear is silence…. until a blog like this. Is the reason that you are totally afraid to express yourself on a right wing blog? Might go to Hell?

Proselytizers on both sides are what screws things up. Lots of religious people act like you’re an idiot for not obviously understanding that “X religious text” is the one true word of “Y deity,” who created the world because how else could it have happened?By contrast, atheists are SURE there’s no higher power, immortal soul, or anything we don’t already know or see.Smugly claiming to know the unknowable is off-putting.

Proselytizers on both sides are what screws things up. Lots of religious people act like you’re an idiot for not obviously understanding that “X religious text” is the one true word of “Y deity,” who created the world because how else could it have happened?By contrast, atheists are SURE there’s no higher power, immortal soul, or anything we don’t already know or see.Smugly claiming to know the unknowable is off-putting.

If ever I came across a post about astrology, I would just ignore it. But if astrologists believed, for example, that people of the same astrological sign should not be allowed to marry, and they had enough political clout to influence marriage policy, it would be wrong to ignore it. The morally right thing to do is to berate them, to try to make it less socially acceptable to use astrology as a justification for anything.

If ever I came across a post about astrology, I would just ignore it. But if astrologists believed, for example, that people of the same astrological sign should not be allowed to marry, and they had enough political clout to influence marriage policy, it would be wrong to ignore it. The morally right thing to do is to berate them, to try to make it less socially acceptable to use astrology as a justification for anything.

Smugly claiming to know the unknowable is off-putting.

Agreed. But I don’t claim to know there’s no god any more than I claim to know there’s not a peanut in the middle of the universe. I just highly doubt it, given the lack of evidence.

I believe most atheists are really just permanent-agnostics-in-principle, who choose to use Occam’s Razor to slice cleanly through an unneeded infinite regression.

Smugly claiming to know the unknowable is off-putting.

Agreed. But I don’t claim to know there’s no god any more than I claim to know there’s not a peanut in the middle of the universe. I just highly doubt it, given the lack of evidence.

I believe most atheists are really just permanent-agnostics-in-principle, who choose to use Occam’s Razor to slice cleanly through an unneeded infinite regression.

@Hielo: I think, generally, those people (we people) aren’t hiding, they just don’t see a place for their religion in a discussion about politics, so maybe the voices get lost in the shuffle? Also, I rarely go to wingnut blogs, but when I do, I see a handful of comments from the very people you speak of. Who are usually told they have no idea what they’re talking about and are promptly ignored.

@Hielo: I think, generally, those people (we people) aren’t hiding, they just don’t see a place for their religion in a discussion about politics, so maybe the voices get lost in the shuffle? Also, I rarely go to wingnut blogs, but when I do, I see a handful of comments from the very people you speak of. Who are usually told they have no idea what they’re talking about and are promptly ignored.

I have never been afraid to express myself, here or any other place as far as my views are.I have an uncle who is about as extreme right as you can get, he also holds a triple Doctorate in Theology, Divinity and something else. He teaches at a Baptist University in Georgia, and is a very Fundamental Baptist. I do mean FUNDAMENTAL, as I said I have had this pointed out to me many times how I am coming up short because I am a liberal.I have taken on my uncle many times one on one, in a discussion and it gets very heated at times over his beliefs which are very different than mine. Just before the election my uncle and I had a very heated discussion about Barack Obama, he was insistent that if elected the first thing he would do was change every law on the book and make us a nation of extremes and install Rev. Wright in as the pastor of our nation.That the President was not a Christian, he didn’t care what he said, my uncle KNEW, and when I asked how he knew he couldn’t answer, he just KNEW. My former pastor told me the same thing, except he also insisted he was a Muslim and that he wasn’t even a citizen of the US and therefore was not eligible to be elected POTUS.Also, Sarah was the greatest thing since slice bread. They both thought that, all because she said she was PRO-LIFE. I pointed out to them, actually she wasn’t, she was ANTI-Choice, and they said what did I mean, so I explained, and they both then told me they agreed with her. I knew then they were lost…

I have never been afraid to express myself, here or any other place as far as my views are.I have an uncle who is about as extreme right as you can get, he also holds a triple Doctorate in Theology, Divinity and something else. He teaches at a Baptist University in Georgia, and is a very Fundamental Baptist. I do mean FUNDAMENTAL, as I said I have had this pointed out to me many times how I am coming up short because I am a liberal.I have taken on my uncle many times one on one, in a discussion and it gets very heated at times over his beliefs which are very different than mine. Just before the election my uncle and I had a very heated discussion about Barack Obama, he was insistent that if elected the first thing he would do was change every law on the book and make us a nation of extremes and install Rev. Wright in as the pastor of our nation.That the President was not a Christian, he didn’t care what he said, my uncle KNEW, and when I asked how he knew he couldn’t answer, he just KNEW. My former pastor told me the same thing, except he also insisted he was a Muslim and that he wasn’t even a citizen of the US and therefore was not eligible to be elected POTUS.Also, Sarah was the greatest thing since slice bread. They both thought that, all because she said she was PRO-LIFE. I pointed out to them, actually she wasn’t, she was ANTI-Choice, and they said what did I mean, so I explained, and they both then told me they agreed with her. I knew then they were lost…

Dean Booth just won my heart and mind.

Dean Booth just won my heart and mind.

By contrast, atheists are SURE there’s no higher power, immortal soul, or anything we don’t already know or see.Smugly claiming to know the unknowable is off-putting.

This is a false equivalence. It is like saying both rapists and people who cut in line in the movies are annoying.Objectively, this is true, but meaningless in terms of a comparison.Now, atheists are not SURE about that, but they think that the possibility is, in face of the evidence presented by objective and measured learning, rather remote, to the point of being academically uncertain. Like, I am not CERTAIN that tomorrow, a zombie apocalypse won’t occur. If one does, I’ll have to deal, but I’m not living my life preparing for it.This said, I’m not an atheist. I’ve got plenty of gods (sort of) and ideas about archetypes and information that replicates being somehow beyond its current container as well as a part of it. I tend to keep these thoughts to myself, as they are relatively personal and probably very silly to people without my personal frame of reference. All of that is neither here nor there, but just to be clear– I’m not defending self-proclaimed atheists out of identification with them.But to compare their stance with people who are claiming that an arbitrary and stitched together set of Persian and Semitic beliefs from the Bronze Age have any bearing in modern society, politics or learning is, to me, so absurd as to be dangerous.

By contrast, atheists are SURE there’s no higher power, immortal soul, or anything we don’t already know or see.Smugly claiming to know the unknowable is off-putting.

This is a false equivalence. It is like saying both rapists and people who cut in line in the movies are annoying.Objectively, this is true, but meaningless in terms of a comparison.Now, atheists are not SURE about that, but they think that the possibility is, in face of the evidence presented by objective and measured learning, rather remote, to the point of being academically uncertain. Like, I am not CERTAIN that tomorrow, a zombie apocalypse won’t occur. If one does, I’ll have to deal, but I’m not living my life preparing for it.This said, I’m not an atheist. I’ve got plenty of gods (sort of) and ideas about archetypes and information that replicates being somehow beyond its current container as well as a part of it. I tend to keep these thoughts to myself, as they are relatively personal and probably very silly to people without my personal frame of reference. All of that is neither here nor there, but just to be clear– I’m not defending self-proclaimed atheists out of identification with them.But to compare their stance with people who are claiming that an arbitrary and stitched together set of Persian and Semitic beliefs from the Bronze Age have any bearing in modern society, politics or learning is, to me, so absurd as to be dangerous.

@ JI understand how opinions are suppressed by the wingnuts. How did they get the idea that they are so smart? Their time is nearly over.Any chance for a powerful website for religious people that really want to act like Jesus… or whoever?

@ JI understand how opinions are suppressed by the wingnuts. How did they get the idea that they are so smart? Their time is nearly over.Any chance for a powerful website for religious people that really want to act like Jesus… or whoever?

From the Prophet James Huber, once again:http://www.jhuger.com/goodnews——————————There's a million dollars under your bed! Yes really. Go look; I’ll wait.Huh, that’s weird. Did you look really hard? Are you sure? Maybe you should try again, and look really, really hard this time.Hmmm, did you look under the carpet? Well, you gotta look under the carpet. I know what I said; but under the carpet under the bed is still under the bed.Nothing? You can’t just feel for lumps; it could be in large bills spread out in a thin layer. You’ve got to pull up the carpet. Hey, with a million dollars you can get a new carpet, right?I don’t think you’re putting enough effort into this. You’re going to have to tear up the floor too. Of course I’m sure it’s there; It says so right here on this old treasure map. Can you prove the map’s a forgery? I didn’t think so.Well of course you have to dig: it’s buried treasure, isn’t it? You always have to dig for buried treasure. Everybody knows that. Are you stupid or something?Deeper.Okay mister know-it-all, prove there’s no treasure. See, you can’t! It’s an irrational claim. You’d have to dig all the way to China. You do believe in China don’t you? Have you ever seen China? See, everybody believes in things they’ve never seen, so keep digging.Deeper!I had some of the dirt analyzed. There are minute traces of gold. You must be getting close. No, it can’t be natural; if gold just occurred naturally we’d all be rich, now wouldn’t we.Deeper!!This guy I know took the dirt sample you sent me, calculated the trace amount of gold per cubic foot, then calculated the total volume of a column of dirt the size of your bed stretching all the way to the other side of the earth, then made some adjustments for increased gold density near the core, and viola! scientific proof that there’s a million dollars in gold under your bed! Isn’t that great?You can’t stop now, you’re so close. What are you so mad about? Look at what great shape you got in from all that digging! Surely that’s worth a million dollars right there. I think you really believe that gold is there anyway. Why else would you have dug that hole? I think that you’re just afraid that if you keep digging you’ll find gold. Why do you hate money so much? Are you some sort of communist?Okay, that’s it, me and some of my friends are going to come over and make you dig. I will not stay out of your bedroom! Your rights? What about my rights? It’s totally unfair for you to deny me the right to that gold just because you don’t believe it’s there. Or rather, claim to not believe it’s there: I think you’re really just lazy.Why are you running around telling people there is no gold under your bed? That’s just more proof that deep down you really know it’s there. If you really didn’t believe there was any gold there it would never occur to you to mention it. After all, nobody runs around saying “There’s no Santa Claus buried under my bed.” You only have to deny the Gold because you know it’s true.You agoldists are such hypocrites. You talk about tolerance and rights, then persecute those of us who just want to be left alone to make you dig under your bed. My congressman is going to hear about this.

From the Prophet James Huber, once again:http://www.jhuger.com/goodnews——————————There's a million dollars under your bed! Yes really. Go look; I’ll wait.Huh, that’s weird. Did you look really hard? Are you sure? Maybe you should try again, and look really, really hard this time.Hmmm, did you look under the carpet? Well, you gotta look under the carpet. I know what I said; but under the carpet under the bed is still under the bed.Nothing? You can’t just feel for lumps; it could be in large bills spread out in a thin layer. You’ve got to pull up the carpet. Hey, with a million dollars you can get a new carpet, right?I don’t think you’re putting enough effort into this. You’re going to have to tear up the floor too. Of course I’m sure it’s there; It says so right here on this old treasure map. Can you prove the map’s a forgery? I didn’t think so.Well of course you have to dig: it’s buried treasure, isn’t it? You always have to dig for buried treasure. Everybody knows that. Are you stupid or something?Deeper.Okay mister know-it-all, prove there’s no treasure. See, you can’t! It’s an irrational claim. You’d have to dig all the way to China. You do believe in China don’t you? Have you ever seen China? See, everybody believes in things they’ve never seen, so keep digging.Deeper!I had some of the dirt analyzed. There are minute traces of gold. You must be getting close. No, it can’t be natural; if gold just occurred naturally we’d all be rich, now wouldn’t we.Deeper!!This guy I know took the dirt sample you sent me, calculated the trace amount of gold per cubic foot, then calculated the total volume of a column of dirt the size of your bed stretching all the way to the other side of the earth, then made some adjustments for increased gold density near the core, and viola! scientific proof that there’s a million dollars in gold under your bed! Isn’t that great?You can’t stop now, you’re so close. What are you so mad about? Look at what great shape you got in from all that digging! Surely that’s worth a million dollars right there. I think you really believe that gold is there anyway. Why else would you have dug that hole? I think that you’re just afraid that if you keep digging you’ll find gold. Why do you hate money so much? Are you some sort of communist?Okay, that’s it, me and some of my friends are going to come over and make you dig. I will not stay out of your bedroom! Your rights? What about my rights? It’s totally unfair for you to deny me the right to that gold just because you don’t believe it’s there. Or rather, claim to not believe it’s there: I think you’re really just lazy.Why are you running around telling people there is no gold under your bed? That’s just more proof that deep down you really know it’s there. If you really didn’t believe there was any gold there it would never occur to you to mention it. After all, nobody runs around saying “There’s no Santa Claus buried under my bed.” You only have to deny the Gold because you know it’s true.You agoldists are such hypocrites. You talk about tolerance and rights, then persecute those of us who just want to be left alone to make you dig under your bed. My congressman is going to hear about this.

Go Dean Booth (whoever you are)!!!

Go Dean Booth (whoever you are)!!!

@joshrobbinSome dude named james huber is a “prophet”?Who says so? Mormon stuff?

@joshrobbinSome dude named james huber is a “prophet”?Who says so? Mormon stuff?

Most people are into religion for the same thing.Themselves.Muslims get 40 virgins.What the hell your gonna do with 40 virgins.Now if it was 40 porn stars I’m in.Christians want there soul to live forever.All religious followers want the toy at the bottom of the Frosted Flakes “Living forever”.Since I”m a little brother I take the toy out when I open the box.I’ve got a feeling my sister is going to be pissed when she get’s to the bottom and finds out the toy isn’t there.See you on judgment day.

Most people are into religion for the same thing.Themselves.Muslims get 40 virgins.What the hell your gonna do with 40 virgins.Now if it was 40 porn stars I’m in.Christians want there soul to live forever.All religious followers want the toy at the bottom of the Frosted Flakes “Living forever”.Since I”m a little brother I take the toy out when I open the box.I’ve got a feeling my sister is going to be pissed when she get’s to the bottom and finds out the toy isn’t there.See you on judgment day.

Some dude named james huber is a “prophet”?

Alas! It is always true; a prophet hath no honor in his own country!Well, he IS a Reverend. And, if he carries one of these, he could be a Pope, if he wanted to be:http://www.noconnectionsstudio.com/index/Pope_Cards.pdf(Hielo: The term was used tongue-in-cheek.)

Some dude named james huber is a “prophet”?

Alas! It is always true; a prophet hath no honor in his own country!Well, he IS a Reverend. And, if he carries one of these, he could be a Pope, if he wanted to be:http://www.noconnectionsstudio.com/index/Pope_Cards.pdf(Hielo: The term was used tongue-in-cheek.)

@joshrobbinI got it! I checked out the website. You have to appreciate someone that will take the time to fuck off in this manner.Mucas Gracias Josh

@joshrobbinI got it! I checked out the website. You have to appreciate someone that will take the time to fuck off in this manner.Mucas Gracias Josh

It’s simple, Lee, not that I’m condoning or condemning:Dogmatic religion has abused and tortured many people in many different ways, and sometimes that leads to those who’ve been abused abusing right back.It’s not necessarily the most prudent way to handle the religious, but it’s not unexpected at all.

It’s simple, Lee, not that I’m condoning or condemning:Dogmatic religion has abused and tortured many people in many different ways, and sometimes that leads to those who’ve been abused abusing right back.It’s not necessarily the most prudent way to handle the religious, but it’s not unexpected at all.

The lack of politeness to religion generally comes up because the thread is discussing the latest heinous act of the Christofascist storm troopers of the Religious wrong who spend their time using their bibles as clubs to smite the nonbelievers with.These vicious fascist thugs assassinate doctors, harass women trying to see their OB/GYN, demand that we rewrite the constitution to implement discrimination specified by THEIR scriptures, and demand that other aspects of their faith which conflict with current constitutional protections be codified into law.I will never be polite to these vicious, rabid fascists. I call them Christofascists because I want to separate them from the real Christians with whom I have no problem whatsoever.I am an atheist. I don’t care what others believe in provided they are not trying to inflict their beliefs on me.

The lack of politeness to religion generally comes up because the thread is discussing the latest heinous act of the Christofascist storm troopers of the Religious wrong who spend their time using their bibles as clubs to smite the nonbelievers with.These vicious fascist thugs assassinate doctors, harass women trying to see their OB/GYN, demand that we rewrite the constitution to implement discrimination specified by THEIR scriptures, and demand that other aspects of their faith which conflict with current constitutional protections be codified into law.I will never be polite to these vicious, rabid fascists. I call them Christofascists because I want to separate them from the real Christians with whom I have no problem whatsoever.I am an atheist. I don’t care what others believe in provided they are not trying to inflict their beliefs on me.

I believe most atheists are really just permanent-agnostics-in-principle, who choose to use Occam’s Razor to slice cleanly through an unneeded infinite regression.

I resemble that remark Kyle.

I believe most atheists are really just permanent-agnostics-in-principle, who choose to use Occam’s Razor to slice cleanly through an unneeded infinite regression.

I resemble that remark Kyle.

“By contrast, atheists are SURE there’s no higher power, immortal soul, or anything we don’t already know or see.”Tommy, the people I know who call themselves atheists, including me, would say they aren’t sure of anything, therefore they don’t believe in anything. I have yet to hear someone say they’re SURE there’s nothing. I don’t doubt there are people like that out there, but I don’t know any, and many of my friends are atheists.I think most of us in America are pretty damn sure there’s no God the way the Bible describes. We’ve seen and heard enough contradictions to know it can’t be true. But I don’t know enough of the other world religions. However, it seems to me that if there were one correct religion, it would be obvious by now. There are literally thousands of religions. How am I supposed to know which one is right? It’s easier to believe none of them are right. But I can never be sure of something I haven’t seen, although I guess I could claim to have “faith” as the religious folks do without having any evidence, and in fact, plenty of evidence to the contrary.I’m sick of being polite. Too many people have been killed and tortured in the name of religion.

“By contrast, atheists are SURE there’s no higher power, immortal soul, or anything we don’t already know or see.”Tommy, the people I know who call themselves atheists, including me, would say they aren’t sure of anything, therefore they don’t believe in anything. I have yet to hear someone say they’re SURE there’s nothing. I don’t doubt there are people like that out there, but I don’t know any, and many of my friends are atheists.I think most of us in America are pretty damn sure there’s no God the way the Bible describes. We’ve seen and heard enough contradictions to know it can’t be true. But I don’t know enough of the other world religions. However, it seems to me that if there were one correct religion, it would be obvious by now. There are literally thousands of religions. How am I supposed to know which one is right? It’s easier to believe none of them are right. But I can never be sure of something I haven’t seen, although I guess I could claim to have “faith” as the religious folks do without having any evidence, and in fact, plenty of evidence to the contrary.I’m sick of being polite. Too many people have been killed and tortured in the name of religion.

@Hielo: wtfwjdbitch.blogspot.com.

@Hielo: wtfwjdbitch.blogspot.com.

Here is a zen argument against politeness in the face of aggressive stupidity :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU&feature=relatedI heart Buzz Aldrin.

Here is a zen argument against politeness in the face of aggressive stupidity :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU&feature=relatedI heart Buzz Aldrin.

There’s a whole mess of religious liberals writing over at streetprophets.com (it’s a spinoff of DailyKos). Check us out.

There’s a whole mess of religious liberals writing over at streetprophets.com (it’s a spinoff of DailyKos). Check us out.

“It also surprises me coming from liberals, from whom I tend to expect greater tolerance and openness to ideas that aren’t their own.”I’m open to religious claims as much as I am to the political claims of the neo-conservatives. I’ve considered and rejected them. I don’t feel the need to re-read every PNAC newsletter just because someone has a new interpretation of what they say.One can be tolerant of everyone’s religious beliefs, but why should I consider those beliefs more respectable or meritorious than the latest Pat Buchanan diatribe? Neither one, at the end of the day, is rooted in objective reality. Note, I’m certainly not suggesting that I equate Saint Francis or MLK with Buchanan, merely stating the relativity of the truth-claims. Ethics are a separate matter.But I should define tolerance: I mean “live and let live” when I use the term. Tolerance does NOT mean “your ideas are equally valid as mine”. I tolerate 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I tolerate Pat Buchanan. I still mock them, because I consider the ideas to be bad ideas.”It’s time for some progressives to rethink their own biases and not become the secular version of a teabagger.”While it is unfair for atheists to assume that all theists are Sarah Palins or Pat Robertsons, don’t conveniently brush under the rug the fact that in the United States, it isn’t atheists shooting ob/gyns or proposing constitutional amendments to limit marriage according to a Christian understanding of same. Atheists are not at the forefront of limiting stem cell research, nor do we indoctrinate children with notions of hell and damnation just for saying “goddamn.” It isn’t a 2000-year old atheist corporation that willfully enables pedophiles to prey on their victims. Presidents don’t attend a National Logic Breakfast to appease a powerful Philosopher’s Lobby or the influential Pre-Socratic voting bloc, and Richard Dawkins doesn’t have weekly conference calls with Obama. There are no court battles to enshrine stone inscriptions of the scientific method in courthouses. No state constitution contains clauses requiring officeholders to adhere to atheism (Texas and, IIRC, Maryland contain such unfortunate clauses regarding theism; unenforceable per the 14th Amendment, but still on the books).You are right to note that some atheists online are less than polite, but the same can be said for any subject on any online forum. Religion brings out more passion, simply put. So does politics, but as this is a liberal/progressive site we broadly agree on most such issues.”In the religion I dig, your politics – your actions and public positions – should go along with your religion.”You are correct – if you believe a set of teachings about the Reality and Ultimate Truth, it should guide everything you do.On the other hand, this, Lee, is the very center of the problem! In the religion Pat Robertson digs, he agrees – but his religion threatens civil rights.I have no problem with any pagan, Unitarian Universalist, Buddhist, Reform Jew, liberal Catholic or Protestant I’ve ever encountered – it’s the liberalism that’s key here, not the religious view. THAT is the common ground. Simply put, theism/atheism an argument for which there is no objective answer, so we should stick to the politics. Jimmy Carter believes, I don’t… but goddamn if he isn’t a great human being.@ Ann Swer: “There are extremes on both sides, frankly. “Don’t mistake passion (and its frequent traveling companion, rudeness) for extremism. Atheists haven’t bombed abortion clinics because of their interpretation of The Origin of Species. That’s extremism.

“It also surprises me coming from liberals, from whom I tend to expect greater tolerance and openness to ideas that aren’t their own.”I’m open to religious claims as much as I am to the political claims of the neo-conservatives. I’ve considered and rejected them. I don’t feel the need to re-read every PNAC newsletter just because someone has a new interpretation of what they say.One can be tolerant of everyone’s religious beliefs, but why should I consider those beliefs more respectable or meritorious than the latest Pat Buchanan diatribe? Neither one, at the end of the day, is rooted in objective reality. Note, I’m certainly not suggesting that I equate Saint Francis or MLK with Buchanan, merely stating the relativity of the truth-claims. Ethics are a separate matter.But I should define tolerance: I mean “live and let live” when I use the term. Tolerance does NOT mean “your ideas are equally valid as mine”. I tolerate 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I tolerate Pat Buchanan. I still mock them, because I consider the ideas to be bad ideas.”It’s time for some progressives to rethink their own biases and not become the secular version of a teabagger.”While it is unfair for atheists to assume that all theists are Sarah Palins or Pat Robertsons, don’t conveniently brush under the rug the fact that in the United States, it isn’t atheists shooting ob/gyns or proposing constitutional amendments to limit marriage according to a Christian understanding of same. Atheists are not at the forefront of limiting stem cell research, nor do we indoctrinate children with notions of hell and damnation just for saying “goddamn.” It isn’t a 2000-year old atheist corporation that willfully enables pedophiles to prey on their victims. Presidents don’t attend a National Logic Breakfast to appease a powerful Philosopher’s Lobby or the influential Pre-Socratic voting bloc, and Richard Dawkins doesn’t have weekly conference calls with Obama. There are no court battles to enshrine stone inscriptions of the scientific method in courthouses. No state constitution contains clauses requiring officeholders to adhere to atheism (Texas and, IIRC, Maryland contain such unfortunate clauses regarding theism; unenforceable per the 14th Amendment, but still on the books).You are right to note that some atheists online are less than polite, but the same can be said for any subject on any online forum. Religion brings out more passion, simply put. So does politics, but as this is a liberal/progressive site we broadly agree on most such issues.”In the religion I dig, your politics – your actions and public positions – should go along with your religion.”You are correct – if you believe a set of teachings about the Reality and Ultimate Truth, it should guide everything you do.On the other hand, this, Lee, is the very center of the problem! In the religion Pat Robertson digs, he agrees – but his religion threatens civil rights.I have no problem with any pagan, Unitarian Universalist, Buddhist, Reform Jew, liberal Catholic or Protestant I’ve ever encountered – it’s the liberalism that’s key here, not the religious view. THAT is the common ground. Simply put, theism/atheism an argument for which there is no objective answer, so we should stick to the politics. Jimmy Carter believes, I don’t… but goddamn if he isn’t a great human being.@ Ann Swer: “There are extremes on both sides, frankly. “Don’t mistake passion (and its frequent traveling companion, rudeness) for extremism. Atheists haven’t bombed abortion clinics because of their interpretation of The Origin of Species. That’s extremism.

“the version of faith and religion that I argue for is based on my experience as a sometime Unitarian-Univeralist; an creedless, dogma free liberal religion to begin with and one that I’m not even all caught up in myself.”Lee, you’re being disingenuous. Again. And again.You complain about insults against religious people, and, well, judge those who think religion’s a silly thing. But you know full well that the religious practices that drive atheists and moderate-religious people crazy are NOT those of the “creedless, dogma-free” religions. You know – you MUST know – that what people like me and joshdobbin have problems with are the right-wing, forcefully proselytizing, downright judging practices characteristic of the Kooky Fundamentalist Protestants in the US (substitute Kooky Fundamentalist Muslims if you’re in the middle east) that also make a point of trying to insert their kooky beliefs into our necessarily secular politics.So when people complain about kooky religious types trying to force all of us to believe what they believe (or at least practice what they practice), either politically or by violence, don’t pull that “but I’M a liberal religious person who is dogma-free!” stuff as a defense of the kooks. Don’t lump yourself in with them. You don’t want to get on that team. Do you?

“the version of faith and religion that I argue for is based on my experience as a sometime Unitarian-Univeralist; an creedless, dogma free liberal religion to begin with and one that I’m not even all caught up in myself.”Lee, you’re being disingenuous. Again. And again.You complain about insults against religious people, and, well, judge those who think religion’s a silly thing. But you know full well that the religious practices that drive atheists and moderate-religious people crazy are NOT those of the “creedless, dogma-free” religions. You know – you MUST know – that what people like me and joshdobbin have problems with are the right-wing, forcefully proselytizing, downright judging practices characteristic of the Kooky Fundamentalist Protestants in the US (substitute Kooky Fundamentalist Muslims if you’re in the middle east) that also make a point of trying to insert their kooky beliefs into our necessarily secular politics.So when people complain about kooky religious types trying to force all of us to believe what they believe (or at least practice what they practice), either politically or by violence, don’t pull that “but I’M a liberal religious person who is dogma-free!” stuff as a defense of the kooks. Don’t lump yourself in with them. You don’t want to get on that team. Do you?

I think that a lot of the anger towards religion comes from the fact that a lot of us non-believers spent the first couple decades of our lives being force-fed some serious bullshit down our throats. And we believed every word of it, because 1) we were afraid, and 2) we were at an age where Santa Claus also seemed reasonable.So then, once our intellectual curiosity finally bypasses our fear of !!ETERNAL DAMNATION!!, we find ourselves feeling like we were lied to. Like we wasted a huge chunk of our lives on complete nonsense. And since we can’t really blame our parents (they were, after all, just doing what they thought was best for us – nobody wants their kids going to hell), we only have the church to blame for perpetuating this outdated mythology.And once that switch has been flipped, it’s easy to find things at which to direct one’s anger. I remember going to church to appease my parents whilst home from college one weekend, and my not-particularly-political church was taking up a collection and getting signatures and contact info from people for some kind of anti-gay marriage organization. Still no word on when a donation will be taken for a “Stop the Genocide” organization. But hey, they showed the ‘Invisible Children’ movie to some middle schoolers at youth group once, so I guess they’re doing their part. That’s just a random example, but everybody knows the sort of thing I’m talking about.It’s also easy to direct anger at religion because, in general, it stifles intellectual curiosity while simultaneously making highly unintelligent people (most of whom are also right-wingers) 100% dead-certain that they have all the answers, and that everyone who doesn’t believe in talking snakes and the like just needs to be saved. And this insane degree of certainty about something so inherently uncertain gives those same sorts of people a rationale for killing doctors, or flying planes into godamn buildings. Cause hey, (*insert appropriate dead guy or deity’s name here*) is on their side.Those are my sorts of reasons for being hostile/angry. And I think it’s understandable for people to feel and act in a hostile manner. Think about it -1) Religiously motivated wars (too many to name)2) the situation in the Middle East3) the pattern of slowing/fighting the progress of science4) Having to listen to Amy Grant in your mom’s car5) the social conservatism6) the intolerance7) the election of Bush the Lesser8) the obnoxious sense of certainty9) the hatred of others10) Jerry FalwellThe list goes on. Hell, nobody is denying that religion has the capacity for good. But I really think there’s no denying that, on the whole, it’s been bad for humanity. And that, I think, is where the anger comes from. When something is so overwhelmingly bad for your species, it’s understandable that one would feel very hostile towards it. I’m not against being more civil, and toning down the rhetoric about flying-spaghetti monsters, etc….but I wouldn’t expect the anger to abate any time soon.Peace all, from across the pond.

I think that a lot of the anger towards religion comes from the fact that a lot of us non-believers spent the first couple decades of our lives being force-fed some serious bullshit down our throats. And we believed every word of it, because 1) we were afraid, and 2) we were at an age where Santa Claus also seemed reasonable.So then, once our intellectual curiosity finally bypasses our fear of !!ETERNAL DAMNATION!!, we find ourselves feeling like we were lied to. Like we wasted a huge chunk of our lives on complete nonsense. And since we can’t really blame our parents (they were, after all, just doing what they thought was best for us – nobody wants their kids going to hell), we only have the church to blame for perpetuating this outdated mythology.And once that switch has been flipped, it’s easy to find things at which to direct one’s anger. I remember going to church to appease my parents whilst home from college one weekend, and my not-particularly-political church was taking up a collection and getting signatures and contact info from people for some kind of anti-gay marriage organization. Still no word on when a donation will be taken for a “Stop the Genocide” organization. But hey, they showed the ‘Invisible Children’ movie to some middle schoolers at youth group once, so I guess they’re doing their part. That’s just a random example, but everybody knows the sort of thing I’m talking about.It’s also easy to direct anger at religion because, in general, it stifles intellectual curiosity while simultaneously making highly unintelligent people (most of whom are also right-wingers) 100% dead-certain that they have all the answers, and that everyone who doesn’t believe in talking snakes and the like just needs to be saved. And this insane degree of certainty about something so inherently uncertain gives those same sorts of people a rationale for killing doctors, or flying planes into godamn buildings. Cause hey, (*insert appropriate dead guy or deity’s name here*) is on their side.Those are my sorts of reasons for being hostile/angry. And I think it’s understandable for people to feel and act in a hostile manner. Think about it -1) Religiously motivated wars (too many to name)2) the situation in the Middle East3) the pattern of slowing/fighting the progress of science4) Having to listen to Amy Grant in your mom’s car5) the social conservatism6) the intolerance7) the election of Bush the Lesser8) the obnoxious sense of certainty9) the hatred of others10) Jerry FalwellThe list goes on. Hell, nobody is denying that religion has the capacity for good. But I really think there’s no denying that, on the whole, it’s been bad for humanity. And that, I think, is where the anger comes from. When something is so overwhelmingly bad for your species, it’s understandable that one would feel very hostile towards it. I’m not against being more civil, and toning down the rhetoric about flying-spaghetti monsters, etc….but I wouldn’t expect the anger to abate any time soon.Peace all, from across the pond.

Know what you get when you cross a Unitarian with a Klansman?A burning question-mark.

Know what you get when you cross a Unitarian with a Klansman?A burning question-mark.

Gottverdammt Klaus: please know you have earned this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhTiJEYqqY8

Gottverdammt Klaus: please know you have earned this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhTiJEYqqY8

Please tell me Stranahan’s not the reason the word “Goddamn” was excised from the name of this blog.

Please tell me Stranahan’s not the reason the word “Goddamn” was excised from the name of this blog.

I don’t think religion is the issue, even though I understand that the topic we are discussing is all about the Left’s apparent vitriolic disdain for it and those who practice it. Religion is just a convenient target for the Left to throw darts at, just like “socialism” is a convenient target for the Right to throw darts at.I think it all comes down to

us

AGAINST

them

As in, “if you are not one of us, you are one of them. You are an enemy, and although I am socially correct enough to rarely actually use that word, nevertheless, that is how I think of you”.It is all about division and taking sides, and here, in our own country, we have become so polarized as to have forgotten, at times, what civil discourse is supposed to look like.Both sides often use whatever ammunition their “opponent” provides to demonize, or worse, dehumanize those who disagree with them.For instance, if a fellow on the Right says he doesn’t believe a particular African -American is qualified for a particular job, immediately he is attacked from numerous places as being racist, regardless of whether the African- American is actually qualified or not.In our current political climate, which is a very dangerous climate in my estimation, FACTS are far less important than how despotic you can make your opponent look. We don’t need to look any further than the ongoing infantile disagreement between Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann; I would describe those two as the day-to-day mouthpieces of either side.If I were a foreigner, I’d believe that the two sides hate each other so completely that the idea of a violent outbreak wouldn’t be considered far-fetched.It’s not religion; it’s not socialism. It’s two sides vying for power and using whatever ammunition is available. It’s two sides trying their best to make the other side look evil.If we are not careful, or at the least, more civil toward each other, we will tear our own nation to shreds.

I don’t think religion is the issue, even though I understand that the topic we are discussing is all about the Left’s apparent vitriolic disdain for it and those who practice it. Religion is just a convenient target for the Left to throw darts at, just like “socialism” is a convenient target for the Right to throw darts at.I think it all comes down to

us

AGAINST

them

As in, “if you are not one of us, you are one of them. You are an enemy, and although I am socially correct enough to rarely actually use that word, nevertheless, that is how I think of you”.It is all about division and taking sides, and here, in our own country, we have become so polarized as to have forgotten, at times, what civil discourse is supposed to look like.Both sides often use whatever ammunition their “opponent” provides to demonize, or worse, dehumanize those who disagree with them.For instance, if a fellow on the Right says he doesn’t believe a particular African -American is qualified for a particular job, immediately he is attacked from numerous places as being racist, regardless of whether the African- American is actually qualified or not.In our current political climate, which is a very dangerous climate in my estimation, FACTS are far less important than how despotic you can make your opponent look. We don’t need to look any further than the ongoing infantile disagreement between Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann; I would describe those two as the day-to-day mouthpieces of either side.If I were a foreigner, I’d believe that the two sides hate each other so completely that the idea of a violent outbreak wouldn’t be considered far-fetched.It’s not religion; it’s not socialism. It’s two sides vying for power and using whatever ammunition is available. It’s two sides trying their best to make the other side look evil.If we are not careful, or at the least, more civil toward each other, we will tear our own nation to shreds.

Gottverdammt Klaus: “Don’t mistake passion (and its frequent traveling companion, rudeness) for extremism. Atheists haven’t bombed abortion clinics because of their interpretation of The Origin of Species. That’s extremism.”I will concede your point, though I was speaking more in terms of viewpoint rather than actions. And I will make no excuses for said actions as there are none.Jeff: “I’m sick of being polite. Too many people have been killed and tortured in the name of religion.”That is a terrible truth. Man is an imperfect being. But I do know that a lot of good has been done in the name of God as well.

Gottverdammt Klaus: “Don’t mistake passion (and its frequent traveling companion, rudeness) for extremism. Atheists haven’t bombed abortion clinics because of their interpretation of The Origin of Species. That’s extremism.”I will concede your point, though I was speaking more in terms of viewpoint rather than actions. And I will make no excuses for said actions as there are none.Jeff: “I’m sick of being polite. Too many people have been killed and tortured in the name of religion.”That is a terrible truth. Man is an imperfect being. But I do know that a lot of good has been done in the name of God as well.

That is a terrible truth. Man is an imperfect being. But I do know that a lot of good has been done in the name of God as well. Can you think of a good that has been done “in the name of God” as you say that could not be justified by rational, godless debate? That’s the issue a lot of people have in dragging religion into policy debates (well, aside from the pesky separation of church and state thing). It’s unnecessary.

That is a terrible truth. Man is an imperfect being. But I do know that a lot of good has been done in the name of God as well. Can you think of a good that has been done “in the name of God” as you say that could not be justified by rational, godless debate? That’s the issue a lot of people have in dragging religion into policy debates (well, aside from the pesky separation of church and state thing). It’s unnecessary.

Are you speaking in terms of governmental policy, i.e., keeping religion/God out of politics/government, doing good for strictly moral, ethical reasons (taking God out of the equation)? Absolutely. Certainly there are good people who do not believe in God who can and do good things. Religious people do not have a corner on the market on goodness and charity. But to say it is unnecessary, I believe is to go too far. I can accept that organized religion is not for everyone, but I do believe it has a place and a mechanism for good in the world.

Are you speaking in terms of governmental policy, i.e., keeping religion/God out of politics/government, doing good for strictly moral, ethical reasons (taking God out of the equation)? Absolutely. Certainly there are good people who do not believe in God who can and do good things. Religious people do not have a corner on the market on goodness and charity. But to say it is unnecessary, I believe is to go too far. I can accept that organized religion is not for everyone, but I do believe it has a place and a mechanism for good in the world.