Jump to content

Welcome to Ain't No God
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

[Blogs] Christianity as "Conscience and Soul" of the Democratic Party?

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1
Hank

Hank

    Hank is a 'bot

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,809 posts
Christianity as "Conscience and Soul" of the Democratic Party? Does the Democratic Party need more religion? Many think so, but their arguments are confused at best. The most prominent argument seems to be that more religion is necessary to... http://atheism.about.../b/a/258785.htm

#2
Ungodly

Ungodly

    Has Equal Rights

  • Administrators
  • 20,712 posts
  • LocationInland Empire, California
Ewww!  She says dumb stuff.

#3
Frozenwolf150

Frozenwolf150

    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 999 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America
It's okay so long as they focus on the positive message.

You know, all that stuff about "Love your neighbor", "Blessed are the peacemakers", helping the poor, and curing the sick?  All that stuff that conservative Christians like to pretend isn't there, just so they can focus on abortion, gay marriage, and stem cells?

Letting other religions (or a lack thereof) in wouldn't hurt the dems either.

#4
FlatEarth1024

FlatEarth1024

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 661 posts

It's okay so long as they focus on the positive message.

You know, all that stuff about "Love your neighbor", "Blessed are the peacemakers", helping the poor, and curing the sick?  All that stuff that conservative Christians like to pretend isn't there, just so they can focus on abortion, gay marriage, and stem cells?

Letting other religions (or a lack thereof) in wouldn't hurt the dems either.


Wouldn't it just be better if we endeavored to take religion out of the equation altogether?  I try to be as tolerant as the next guy, but "let other religions in"?  What the hell do you want to do that for?  Kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it?  Instead of letting other religions in and turning the Democratic Convention into some hybrid Crusade/Pogrom/Jihad, I would much rather work towards getting rid of the one already entrenched.  For the love of Hank, MORE religion is definitely NOT the answer here.

#5
Frozenwolf150

Frozenwolf150

    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 999 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America
I didn't think I'd be misinterpreted to such an extent, but fine, go ahead, believe whatever you wish.


Since I might as well try to clarify, though, what I was referring to was more pertinent towards preventing Christianity from becoming the dominant religious influence, the way it has with the republican party.  I do not want the democrats to make the same mistake of becoming Christian elitists or exclusives, and I don't want them to end up playing favorites or pandering to one religion in particular.  Freedom of religion works both ways, and I have no good reason to think of everything as a slippery slope to fanaticism.

So excuse me for thinking that tolerance of views on religion other than the Christian belief system would be the logical first step towards eventual tolerance of those with no religion.  Just forget I brought it up.

#6
FlatEarth1024

FlatEarth1024

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 661 posts

I didn't think I'd be misinterpreted to such an extent, but fine, go ahead, believe whatever you wish.


Since I might as well try to clarify, though, what I was referring to was more pertinent towards preventing Christianity from becoming the dominant religious influence, the way it has with the republican party.  I do not want the democrats to make the same mistake of becoming Christian elitists or exclusives, and I don't want them to end up playing favorites or pandering to one religion in particular.  Freedom of religion works both ways, and I have no good reason to think of everything as a slippery slope to fanaticism.

So excuse me for thinking that tolerance of views on religion other than the Christian belief system would be the logical first step towards eventual tolerance of those with no religion.  Just forget I brought it up.



Whoa...easy.  I'm not Hellflower or Nunyabiz.  We can disagree amicably, and if I misunderstood your point I apologize.  I also apologize if you took my reply as some sort of attack upon you or your position.  Please believe me that it was neither.  I merely tried to convey my opinion that adding more religion to an already church controlled government seemed counterproductive.

With that said, I fail to see how wishing to see the end of religion represents "fanaticism".  I think some of us may have a tendency to overuse that word.  I believe a world without religion is a good thing, and I endeavor to all good things.  I wish to see hunger and war ended.  I wish the homeless were all provided shelter.  I contribute to all of these causes whenever I can.  Am I now a "food fanatic" or a "peace fanatic"? 

Come on now.  It isn't necessary to reply to every difference of opinion with a cry of "fanatic!" or "militant!".  I have not called for revolution or overthrow.  I do not wish to see the religious persecuted or prosecuted.  I would have thought you know me better than that by now. 

I just wish they would go away.  I just wish this 5000 year old cancer called religion would run its malignant course and die off already and let the human race get on with the business of living.  For this I will not apologize, and if that makes me a militant or a fanatic in your eyes, then I will just have to accept that.

#7
The White Coyote

The White Coyote

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 3,363 posts
  • LocationThe Great Northwest
I can see both your points and actually agree with you both. While religion is a crutch for politicians to lean on, it is also not realistic to ever believe it will go away entirely. The first step in downplaying religion is to get all faiths on a level laying field. That aint gonna happen. Neither will "proving" ones religion is false going to make it go away. There will always be another mutated form of christianity, islam, even paganism to take the place of the originals. The idea I see here is to assure Christianity is not the only "driving" faith behind the democratic party. Also the idea is to eliminate all faiths from politics. Both good ideas but truthfully, one is about as likely to happen as the other. Not. The majority of this countrys faithful follow the christian faith in one form or another. The issue however is politics. And any politician knows the key to the next election is getting the majority to vote your way. So pandering to the fundys is a political factor. We do not live in an ideal world and never will. It's better to work with what we have, then to sit and bitch that what we have isn't right. That does nothing.

#8
Frozenwolf150

Frozenwolf150

    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 999 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America
You misunderstand again.  I wasn't calling you a fanatic, I was saying that I don't agree with your assumption that all religion leads to fanaticism.  When I mentioned acceptance of other religions, you jumped to the conclusion that this would turn the democratic party into a "hybrid Crusade/Pogrom/Jihad".  I already know well enough that my belief that religion must be reformed rather than destroyed is going to put me at odds with a lot of atheists.  However, the main point of my disagreement was the generalization of all religious people as terrorists.

In my first post I alluded to the fact that there is more than one way for Christianity to be interpreted.  Point is, I'm not one to judge all of them on the basis of what I see and hear from the extreme conservative denominations.

#9
Ungodly

Ungodly

    Has Equal Rights

  • Administrators
  • 20,712 posts
  • LocationInland Empire, California

I already know well enough that my belief that religion must be reformed rather than destroyed is going to put me at odds with a lot of atheists. 


It is one thing to hold a different position than most atheists, it would be a different thing to be dogmatic and assume everyone must agree.  I don't see you doing the latter, nor FlatEarth, so as an observer this exchange seems to have tittered briefly on the edge of misunderstanding, but been saved at the last minute by a dispassionate explanation.

Perhaps the answer is to reform religion as a part of the process of rendering it a deprecated field of endeavor.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users