Director James Cameron rewrites religion!

[JoeTheJuggler]

To stick with the matter How on earth are they going to proove it is Jesu toomb? Compare it with DNA from the Shroud of Turin?

Hee-hee!

Their lord and saviour is related to henna (or whatever the plant pigments were)!

 

[Beady]

It sounds reasonable up to a point.

Everything sounds reasonable up to a point. Even what Vampire said. But only until you realize that there are an awful lot of Believers out there who are being falsely tarred with the brush of "Jesus shouting, baby tossing, snake handling Pentecostals." Last I knew, for instance, my old church, the Wisconsin Synod Evangelical Lutheran Church, while being completely fundamentalist, is also staunchly for church-state separation.

Personally, I'm more concerned with the local crime rate than I am with our Pentecostal overlords.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

My own call for detente is not validation of their religion, but a recognition that, as I've said before, we have to share the planet with these people. We have to buy from them, sell to them, socialize with them and, in far more instances than not, make common cause with them.

Ordinarily, I don't care what a person believes. When they try to push their filth on me or society at large, then I care. Clearly you see the distinction?

None of this is going to be made any easier by some atheistic nutbar standing on a soapbox and damning all believers to hell (or whatever it is that atheistic nutbars do).

So, you bemoan us making strawmen of believers, and yet you're making strawmen of us?

 

[Beady]

Ordinarily, I don't care what a person believes. When they try to push their filth on me or society at large, then I care. Clearly you see the distinction?

Yes, but only so far. As follows:

[

So, you bemoan us making strawmen of believers, and yet you're making strawmen of us?

The difference being, near as I can tell, you and every participant in this thread who agrees with you see "Believers" as a single monolithic bloc who are always trying to "push their filth on you and society at large." Near as I can tell, again, you have demonized anyone and everyone who believes in a supreme being or declares membership in an organized church; if you are to be taken at face value, not a single religious person or organization has a single good quality, but instead has the single-minded goal of dominating the United States.

That's the impression you give.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

The difference being, near as I can tell, you and every participant in this thread who agrees with you see "Believers" as a single monolithic bloc who are always trying to "push their filth on you and society at large." Near as I can tell, again, you have demonized anyone and everyone who believes in a supreme being or declares membership in an organized church; if you are to be taken at face value, not a single religious person or organization has a single good quality, but instead has the single-minded goal of dominating the United States.

That's the impression you give.

Monolithic? Hardly. They are legion. Anyone who has an invisible friend who whispers rules for living their lives into their ear is a person I disagree with, by definition. Unless they want to force the views of their shoulder leprechaun on everyone else, I'll restrict myself to debating their beliefs.

 

[Beady]

Monolithic? Hardly. They are legion.

Sigh. Let's try this again:

The difference being, near as I can tell, you and every participant in this thread who agrees with you see "Believers" as a single completely unified group of people in total agreement amongst themselves who are always trying to "push their filth on you and society at large." Near as I can tell, again, you have demonized anyone and everyone who believes in a supreme being or declares membership in an organized church; if you are to be taken at face value, not a single religious person or organization has a single good quality, but instead has the single-minded goal of dominating the United States.

That's the impression you give.

 

[bruto]

Everything sounds reasonable up to a point. Even what Vampire said. But only until you realize that there are an awful lot of Believers out there who are being falsely tarred with the brush of "Jesus shouting, baby tossing, snake handling Pentecostals." Last I knew, for instance, my old church, the Wisconsin Synod Evangelical Lutheran Church, while being completely fundamentalist, is also staunchly for church-state separation.

Personally, I'm more concerned with the local crime rate than I am with our Pentecostal overlords.

Well, good on the Lutherans, then. Unfortunately, even though the demagogues who are pushing for desecularizing government may be in a minority, they seem to be wielding a great deal of power, and their radical ideas are gaining traction and the appearance of normality, and much of that is due to the apparent indifference of people who don't necessarily share their radical agenda, but fail to recognize its implications or its importance. I may be an alarmist on this, and I really hope I am, but I think it's dangerous.

I do not think all Christians are baby tossing fundies, etc. etc. - far from it. I simply believe that not enough has been done by all in question to distance themselves from the radical religious right, which has, I think, cultivated a sense of common cause with less radical Christians, and led them to a habit of dangerous compromise with ideas and agendas that may well turn around and bite them later.

 

[Beady]

I simply believe that not enough has been done by all in question to distance themselves from the radical religious right...

Fair enough. However, I think it's also true that not enough has been done by nonBelievers to distance themselves from the radical atheistic left. Zealots and radicals do not speak for the majority by definition, and it is grossly unfair and downright bigotted to pretend that they do. I fear the radicals who are putatively on my side of the fence just as much as I fear those on the other side. I wouldn't want to live in a jurisdiction that was controled by either group.

 

[bruto]

Fair enough. However, I think it's also true that not enough has been done by nonBelievers to distance themselves from the radical atheistic left. Zealots and radicals do not speak for the majority by definition, and it is grossly unfair and downright bigotted to pretend that they do. I fear the radicals who are putatively on my side of the fence just as much as I fear those on the other side. I wouldn't want to live in a jurisdiction that was controled by either group.

Fair enough - I agree in principle but do think that at least presently the majority is being swayed more by the radical right than the radical left. I'm glad to see that the Lutherans appear to be thinking about the implications of things, and remembering their history. I wish more did.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Sigh. Let's try this again:

The difference being, near as I can tell, you and every participant in this thread who agrees with you see "Believers" as a single completely unified group of people in total agreement amongst themselves who are always trying to "push their filth on you and society at large." Near as I can tell, again, you have demonized anyone and everyone who believes in a supreme being or declares membership in an organized church; if you are to be taken at face value, not a single religious person or organization has a single good quality, but instead has the single-minded goal of dominating the United States.

That's the impression you give.

Based on what precisely? Do you really think I'm so stupid that I don't know how divided theists are? Sects divided for reasons having to do with totally unscientific and historically improbable doctrines, ancient grievances, and petty power struggles divide theists along a bewildering number of lines. When people earnestly believe in total nonsense, they're bound to disagree on things. What they have in common though is the conviction that their imaginary friend is real and has something important to say. Overwhelmingly, that message involves what they should do with their own lives, which is every person's right to chose for themselves, but it all to often includes what their neighbors ought to do, as well.

If theists were content to let others do as they pleased, we wouldn't have nakedly religiously motivated anti-science movements, anti-HPV vaccination movements, and anti-gay rights movements. Disappointingly, theists are foaming at the mouth lunatics with an allergy to reason, or they're enablers of extremism. Whenever anyone criticizes religious extremists, in public discourse or even here on this board, the critic is bombarded with pleas that not every theist is like that. I'm aware, but if theists did a better job slapping their own whenever they lost touch with reality, we'd all be better off. Also, it's absurd to avoid pinning the blame for religious extremism where it belongs; on religion. Surely it's obvious that religion is the cause of religious extremism?

 

[Beady]

Disappointingly, theists are foaming at the mouth lunatics with an allergy to reason, or they're enablers of extremism...but if theists did a better job slapping their own whenever they lost touch with reality, we'd all be better off.

If nonBelievers did a better job of slapping their own whenever they lost touch with reality, we'd all be better off.

Paraphrasing myself, I fear people like you, just as much as I fear Jerry Falwell.

 

[Humphreys]

The way I see it is, the mainstream religions themselves are structured in a way that any sincere believers have to be a complete pain in the arse. The reason being, the very religion they have complete faith in preaches Hell and damnation to anyone who doesn't believe.

If I were someone who strongly believed that anyone not believing the way I do is going to suffer immensely in the afterlife, I'd certainly feel morally obligated to let these poor people know what they're in for, and to do everything in my power to "save" them.

The issue here is not so much the believers themselves, but sick, f*cked up religions corrupting their minds.

 

[Humphreys]

What's worse, a fundy nut bugging me to change my ways or face Hell, or a fundy nut leaving me alone knowing that God will sort me out with a pitchfork up the bottom?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

If nonBelievers did a better job of slapping their own whenever they lost touch with reality, we'd all be better off.

Paraphrasing myself, I fear people like you, just as much as I fear Jerry Falwell.

Why? What is it that you fear I will do?

 

[Beady]

What is it that you fear I will do?

I fear that you will allow people I like and respect to think you are speaking for me, simply because you and I share the same "nonBeliever" label. Since you don't seem to have a problem lumping 87% of the US population (2000 census) under a single "Believer" label and treating them identically regardless of any differences in doctrine, attitude or degree of belief, I don't see why you would claim to distinguish between different forms of nonbelief.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I fear that you will allow people I like and respect to think you are speaking for me, simply because you and I share the same "nonBeliever" label. Since you don't seem to have a problem lumping 87% of the US population (2000 census) under a single "Believer" label and treating them identically regardless of any differences in doctrine, attitude or degree of belief, I don't see why you would claim to distinguish between different forms of nonbelief.

Why are you accusing me of something I didn't do? I didn't classify them in one group. I classified them in two groups; fundamentalists and enablers. As far as that goes, I'll admit it leaves out those believers who do oppose fundamentalism, such as Ex-President Carter. Mae culpa. Even so, believers come in three types in so far as we are discussing the perils of religion. How is it unfair to classify believers on their stance towards fundamentalism in a discussion about fundamentalism? The only difference between a Jesus-believing fundamentalist and a John Frum fundamentalist is their specific doctrine. They are identical in that they want to use coercive means to force other to believe as they do.

 

[Miss Whiplash]

The "Religious Right" has always been there. Its political power ebbs and flows, just like with any other demographic. You can either allow them their voice, or you can become the very thing you claim to be fighting.

BTW, I do know a few Fundies (one of them will be installing a new roof on our house), but I've never run across a "Jesus shouting, baby tossing, snake handling Pentecostal." How many of those do you know? A second question may be, Are you sure you haven't lost your sense of proportion?

Ahh, thank you for reminding me of this thread. I know quite a few Fundies that are as I've described. In fact, there are more Fundies who practice what I said, than decent folk who go to mainstream churches. Membership of organized Pentecostal/charismatic churches are up more than 40% since 1990. Then add into the mix Pentecostals who work Baptist into their name - Free Will Baptists, Pentecostal Baptists, Old Regular Baptists, Privative Baptist. And let's not forget AME Zion churches where people get the spirit.

I see you are citing regional bias and special pleading on this one.

I must ask, were you asleep when Bush pushed through his Faith Based Initiative? That was the most blatant erosion of the church/state boundary in recent history.

BTW: I must cite my own class bias against Fundamentalists. Pentecostals are traditionally the church of ignorant, superstitious, uneducated white trash. Personally, I see nothing changing, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Beady]

I just realized, I've had this conversation before, about 10 or 12 years ago (pre-9/11). Then, I got my a$$ kicked for maintaining that not all Muslims were bomb-throwing terrorists. Now I'm banging my head against a brick wall, maintaining that belief in a superior being doesn't inherently forfeit any claim to decency.

ID, you have not restricted your comments to fundies; you have been rather all-inclusive. When I pointed out to you that you were failing to differentiate (124 & 126), you claimed you knew the difference, then turned around and lumped them all together again as "theists."

Vampire, it is not special pleading, simply because you say so. Besides, your own argument that "there are more Fundies who practice what I said, than decent folk who go to mainstream churches" makes no sense. The majority are the mainstream. If you are claiming that ""Jesus shouting, baby tossing, snake handling Pentecostals" are the mainstream/majority, then you are also claiming that they are the majority/mainstream, respectively.

I'm tired of this. I never thought JREF was a place I'd have to fight so hard against bigotry and prejudice. I'm outta here.

 

[Miss Whiplash]

Don't let the screen door hit you on the way out, honey.

I answered you question. You wanted to know if I knew any of these people, I told you and restated your question. Pentecostals,Free Will Baptists and the rest are not considered mainstream religions. And I still think Pentecostals, et al are white trash.

 

[bruto]

I fear that you will allow people I like and respect to think you are speaking for me, simply because you and I share the same "nonBeliever" label. Since you don't seem to have a problem lumping 87% of the US population (2000 census) under a single "Believer" label and treating them identically regardless of any differences in doctrine, attitude or degree of belief, I don't see why you would claim to distinguish between different forms of nonbelief.

I don't think you need to lump believers together to see dangerous tendencies. The aggressive and well organized religious right has been very effective recently in using the rhetoric of common cause, culture, and often downright lies (e.g. "intelligent design") to make their ideas seem comfortable and normal, to promote the idea that secular government threatens religious values, that opposition to their agenda is anti-religious and atheistic, and, in short, to make many less radical believers into passive enablers, whether or not they realize just what they are enabling. I've spoken to a number of friends and acquaintances about some of these issues. They are, I believe, relatively sane and rational people, who do not think of their faith or their politics as anything but moderate, but the prevailing attitude seems to be that opposition to school prayer, outlawing abortion, teaching of creationism in the schools, using government funds to support religious schools, outlawing gay marriage, etc. etc. are a new and radical-left assault on traditional values. In short, many are being convinced that what is actually a very conservative effort to keep our government secular as a radical effort to force some strawman of secular humanism on society. Of course, not everybody is falling for this, but more are than I'm comfortable with. It's unfortunate that so few people think about the consequences of things like this, and more unfortunate indeed that so few people think hard about history. I find it very sadly ironic that protestants, especially, should ever push for theocracy, given the history of how protestants got their start.