There is no anti-Religious “liberal agenda,” so the question is meaningless.
Are there some “liberals” who would like to see religion abolished? Sure.
That, however, hardly translates into a “liberal agenda.” The ACLU, for example, has resolutely defended the rights of persons to exercise their religious freedoms, although it also opposes the imposition of religious beliefs from one group onto the whole country.
It seems to me that you have two separate issues. On the one hand, you are reacting to a (not really all that large) handful of people such as Der Trihs who truly hold a personal belief that all religion is evil. On the other hand, you seem to be repeating some of the propaganda from the Religious Right regarding the effects of increased freedoms in this country that impinge on their theocratic view of how this country should act.
I suspect that you will get a better discussion if you focus on one or the other of these topics.
By the way, I would note that this pairing of statements is just odd.
The U.S. (and its predecessor English colonial system) has demonstrated ruthlessness throughout its history as it destroyed Indian nations from the 17th through 19th centuries, participated in the enslavement of millions of Africans and the suppression of the rights of their descendants for years after slavery was finally abolished, interrupted and suppressed the development of other nations in Central and South America and East Asia throughout the 20th century, and interupted the indigenous development of nations in West Asia and Africa following WWII. None of those things originated after 1965.
Size was gained at the expense of other peoples and was formally concluded six years prior to 1965.
Debt and “living off the past” are more recent events, but each has much stronger ties to the Republican party (with its Christian Right wing) of the 1980s and 2000s than it does to any “liberal” agenda or to the minority of baby boomers who actually protested the war in Viertnam.
So you might want to check your facts before you draw conclusions from them.
Voting for Bush ? Foolish and evil. Voting against Clinton ? I don’t recall his non-Republican opponents, but it’s been a long time since the Republicans have been anything other than representative of the worst elements of American society ( not that the Clintons were a prize ), so also foolish and/or evil, if less so. Reagan ? Murderous, senile scum; also foolish and evil to support. I’ve never heard about the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993”, so I’m not going to comment on it.
Hardly. Some things are stupid enough, or evil enough to be easily determined from the start. Otherwise, we couldn’t hold people responsible for their actions at all.
There is no such agenda, as said. The “liberal agenda” however, has historically been the path of progress, of the general betterment of society. The liberals may or may not be right; the conservatives are pretty much universally wrong, morally and practically. Women’s rights, racial equality, stem cell research, AIDS, homosexual rights, the war in Iraq, the war in Vietnam, birth control, abortions; name it, and it’s pretty much guaranteed that the conservatives will be on the wrong side.
As for your other comments - and you aren’t supposed to modify people’s quotes by the way :
Only among bigots.
Only among fools.
Also only among fools.
The anti abortion movement is one of monstrous evil.
Millennia dead preachers don’t come back. And basing your decisions on the idea they will is lunacy.
Although the teeming may claim to be religious, I challenge the assumption that they really truly are. There are incentives for pretending to be more religious, but I don’t think there are many incentives for being less religious.
Politicians pretty much have to pretend to be a follower of God. I also think there are some clergy who are not very religious, or not religious at all. Some religious leaders act very selfishly or behave like someone who does not think they will be judged in an afterlife.
IMHO, the numbers are probably skewed. Have YOU ever pretended to be more religious than you truly are?
Could one conclude that ruthlessness is a characteristic of western religion?
Was the destruction of Indian nations due to religious fervor (in the name of God) or more due to a burgeoning population?
Did slavery have its roots in religion? Are you saying that the civil war was a religious war or was it a war to eliminate an unfair economic advantage the the southern slave states had over the northern free states or was it a war over an ideal “All Men are Created equal”?
Was not US involvement a necessary counter to the communist threat (forced curtailment of freedom) of that era and not an attempt to further a religious dogma?
I am not sure what role US played in this region. Could you elaborate on how The U.S. (and its predecessor English colonial system) interrupted the indigenous development of nations in West Asia and Africa.
I would conclude that western religion and the US has had more of a tempering effect to the ruthlessness nature of the human species than it has to promoting a ruthlessness in the time period covered above. Religion has tended to restrain responses and ruthlessness throughout the US history. Religion is necessary to hold back the human species drive to survive at any cost.
Both; but the strength of Christianity made peaceful co-existence an impossibility.
Religion was heavily involved, both as justification for slavery, and as a motive for kidnapping people into slavery in the first place. It had nothing to do with “an unfair economic advantage the the southern slave states had over the northern free states”, because the advantage was the other way around.
America, outside it’s borders, was just as hostile to freedom as the Soviet Union, and as murderous. And one of the major drivers for the fight against Communism by the West was religion; something that fascism benefited heavily from.
:rolleyes: Religion is one of the strongest sources and best excusers of ruthlessness there is. It is one of the best ways to eliminate all traces of compassion or the consideration of consequences from people. The history of Western religion is one of utter brutality and ruthlessness in it’s name; it has spread as far as it has primarily because of utter ruthlessness. By genocide, and slavery, the destruction of cultures, the burning of books and conversion by the sword. Even today, people practice ruthlessness in the name of religion ALL THE TIME; from terrorizing their own children because they are gay, to killing people by lying to them about condoms and AIDS and abortion.
I assume from another post that you will trust liberals, like scientists, to correct their mistakes or don’t you trust liberals either?
.
Your response is not helpful. If you are so right then you should have the mental prowess to extrapolate 50 years into the future and tell me what kind of America my children (and yours if you have any) will live in assuming that the conservatives get on your side, “the right side.”
You will note that I asked a question. I want examples, cites, and backup not your pent up anger and other emotions or your condescension. Consider me as someone that will be convinced that the teachings of the bible and a free expression of religion has no place in my life because it now teaches ruthlessness to a vast majority of the teeming masses along that spectrum of religious fervor of my 1st post.
I would make no claim regarding the “religious” origins of any of the points mentioned. You took a short list of perceived evils provided by Der Trihs and opined that they were all the result of the U.S. turning away from religion since 1965. Regardless whether Der Trihs’s beliefs have any merit, your claim was simply not accurate.
(Do not misunderstand my point. I do not find the claims of Der Trihs, rooted as they are in an absolutist set of beliefs that sets an a priori determination of “good” or “bad” on all persons and events to be in any way persuasive. This was my point regarding the two separate arguments that you have advanced. You will do better to either simply wrangle with Der Trihs (perhaps matching your apparent fundy Christanity against his apparent fundy atheism ) or else ignore his separate set of beliefs and argue the whole matter of “liberalism” trying to “destroy” religion to the detriment of the U.S.
FTR, I am a devout Christian who fears a theocracy more than I fear a bit of chaotic democracy, so I am liable to appear as a religious nutjob to Der Trihs while appearing as an anti-religious nutjob to someone like Wildmon or Dobson.)
I am guessing that you are asking whether liberals will correct their mistakes in the way that scientists correct their mistakes. The sentence almost reads as though you are saying scientists are an exaple of liberals–a point that would be silly if asserted.
It’s actually potatoes. prior to the discovery of the New World and potatoes there was no Enlightenment. The United States was the first liberal revolution, and not surprisingly the Unisted States is in the Americas where potatoes are from. The next liberal revolution was in France, and I’m sure you are familiar with the terms “French Fry”.
If you look at a map you will see that rice eating countries such as China and India are impoverished and backward. Japan needed to be forceably conquered by a potato eating country to join the modern world and become a capitalist democrarcy.
The USSR is an interstong counterpoint: they have potatoes, but they turn them into Vodka. Apparrently in order for captitalism to exist potatoes must be consumed in solid (and/or mashed) form.
I’m not sure of why you bring up scientists, but I do expect liberals to change their opinions more readily than conservatives. A dislike of change is literally part of the definition of conservative.
No, I can’t. Opposing the Right for me is about opposing evil and stupidity and craziness; not because I know what will happen to the country. I’m more interested in avoiding the Christian-corporate theocratic/fascistic state they want to impose on us.
A cite for what ? Do you want a list of atrocities commited in the name of Christianity, or oppressive laws imposed by it or something ? I already mentioned some, like laws against women and homosexuals, lies about condoms and AIDS, excusing slavery, the Crusades etc. If you want a cite for something as obvious as the sky being blue, you should explain what aspect of the sky’s blueness you disbelieve in.
And it does not “now teach” ruthlessness; it always has.
Yes I was trying to find out if Der Trihs trusts liberals.
And another equally revealing question: does Der Trihs trust conservatives.
But on a higher plane do liberals and conservatives within the teeming masses correct their own mistakes or do they both cling to their mistakes until corrected by the other side? Do both liberals and conservatives do foolish and evil things.
In this generation, somehow will lead to Christian-corporate theocratic/fascistic state in the next generation when it hasn’t in the last 13 generations of occupation of this continent by people of European, Asian, and African descent.
Fearing taxes, health care, energy, environment, and war seems a hell of a lot more important to the next generation than fearing an improbable theocracy. Attempting to ameliorate the fear by elevating minor issues (imperfections) of a free society and to create chaos is evil stupid and crazy.
Now we are getting somewhere. At least two posters fear the US is trending toward a theocracy in the next generation.
Der Trihs seems to believe that we are already under a burgeoning theocracy (and have been from day one) that is only kept (marginally) in check by the watchful efforts of anti-theocrats.
I, on the other hand, while recognizing that we have had our theocratic periods, do not fear it as an imminent event so long as enough people (religious and non-religious) recognize the value of a pluralistic society and continue efforts to prevent any encroachment of theocratic tendencies.
(Here is a tip: any time you lump the views of Der Trihs with those of any other poster, you have a +95% chance of having made an error. That is probably true of any two posters, but it is certainly true regarding Der Trihs.)
That is one crazy graph. Are you seriously contending that religious beliefs map to political beliefs like that? That ‘Holy Roller’ is only one step away from fascism, and that ‘athiest’ is only one step away from anarchism?
I’d say the Quakers, or Mennonites, or Hutterites, would fit the description ‘Holy Roller’, and yet there’s not a fascist bone in their bodies. The founding fathers of the U.S. ranged from ‘Holy Roller’ to ‘deist’, with maybe a sprinkling of agnostics or athiests, and none of them were fascists. Even real fascists varied greatly in their religious beliefs.
I’d also like to know how you extrapolated the numbers in your chart from the ones on that page. For example, you’ve got over a third of the U.S. population labelled as "Holy Rollers’, and fully two-thirds as either ‘Holly Rollers’ or "God-Fearing’. And yet, your own cite says that 42% of the American population attend church ‘seldom’ or ‘never’. How do you reconcile that difference?
And if you’re trying to draw bright line between ‘fascists’ and the ‘Christian Right’, which I suspect is part of your intent, you may notice that only slightly more than half the American population is Protestant.
Also, I don’t believe these numbers are much different in other countries. For example, 14% of Americans never attend church - in Canada, the number is 16%. In Britain, it’s 15.5%.
Various forms of tyranny, religious and otherwise and attempts at it have come and gone in America. You assume your conclusions.
And religion has become much stronger in the last few decades; another difference. American history isn’t a smooth change from strong religion to weak religion; it comes and goes.
And in a lot of those issues, the bad guys are heavily driven by religious motivations. And not fearing a theocracy not only won’t stop one from happening; it makes it more likely.
Arguing for atheism creates chaos ? And American religiousity isn’t a minor imperfection; it’s a gaping, gangrenous wound.
Did I save anything about time ? As long as America is anywhere near as religious as it is, the chance for it to devolve into a theocracy is ever present.
What makes you think 2000 years is a long time? Geologically it’s blindingly fast. Maybe Christianity has been a brush fire of enlightenment, but you guys just have unrealistic expectations on the redemption of the world.
The OP is predicated on a load of nonsense. An atheist is no more likely to be rational than a theist.
I was wondering when someone would ask how I derived that graph.
Fascist – Their will by force of arms
Holy roller – Their will by witnessing (words).
God fearing – The religious number in the cite minus the evangelicals and born again.
Reverent – non-religious. I figured that if you were non-religious you would a least be reverent toward others.
agnostic – from the cite
non-Deist – from the cite
Dibblist – Accept possible existence of God but are fighting against him.See Possibility of being an Atheist Believer. - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
atheist – from the cite
anarchist – no government or spiritual guidance.
Quakers, or Mennonites are God fearing.
After studying the cite a bit more, Below graph is more accurate. Evangelical (theologically) 16 being holy rollers.
Demographic religious fervor index US
Fascist, Holy roller, God fearing, reverent, agnostic, non-Deist, Dibblist, atheist, anarchist
—^------------^------------^-------------^------------^---------^-------------^-------^---------^
–?-----------22M------180M---------37M--------1.4M----3.4M----------?------1.1M------?
Many people are God fearing but never attend church because of their dislike of organized religion. According to a minister friend of mine the trend of having private worship service in the home is increasing.
) or else ignore his separate set of beliefs and argue the whole matter of “liberalism” trying to “destroy” religion to the detriment of the U.S.
Maybe Christianity has been a brush fire of enlightenment, but you guys just have unrealistic expectations on the redemption of the world.