What about religion, more importantly christianity scares you liberals out there???
 

Straight forward question, I already know most of you will say "I'm not scared by it, but blah blah blah...". If you aren't scared by it then why do you harbor so much animosity towards the judeo-christian beliefs, and why do you so ferverntly oppose its influence here in America?

The inquisition, witch hunts, the KKK, Timothy McVeigh, bombings of abortion clinics, and that Christianity will direct foreign policy and be used as a justification to limit personal freedoms.

There are reasons to fear any religion, though.

Although I'm not afraid of religion, I do become nervous at overt attempts to merge it with our political structure.

Your belief that it ought to permeate our political structures, our civil life, and that it is necessary to reinstate our nation's greatness is similar to the theories and justifications for Islamic fundamentalist movements and political-relgious organizations like the Taliban.

Faith, by definition, is belief without proof. This applies to all religions.

What deity would grant it's creations rational thought then insist they not use that ability to gain entry into paradise?

D'oh!

2Wolves

XenuHubbard, smooth, 2wolves hit the nail on the head! I am by no means a liberal when it comes to politics except I guess, when you talk Religion. Gotta Keep'em Separated.

What scares me is that people believe 'they have god on their side'.
I've been raised a christian - quit when I was 14 - and I've experienced first-hand the manipulative, guilt-tripping tricks they use to get me back to the flock.
All of it, ofcourse, in my best interest..

Religion would be a totally different matter if the members would accept that everyone has the freedom to choose his or her own religion, or none at all.

I don't mind some guy putting up a plaque with the ten commandments on it- the ones that are not about god are pretty sensible. What I dislike is that these people refuse to accept that a human being can have principles without kneeling to some santa-like figure in the sky.
What I dislike is these people refusing the possibility that god may not exist.
In many discussions I've had to deal with people who were convinced that I did 'know' that god exists, but that I refused to accept him.

It's the shear stubburn irrationality and self-righteousness of religious people that scares me.

I totally agree with JBX that religion and state should be seperated. Politics are (imo) supposed to be objective, religion is subjective by definition.

also, the state is supposed to give the same treatment to all it's citizens. but endorsing/promoting one religion/its idols, state is not being fair.

if the govt wants to be fair, it should give equal oppurtunity to all the religions in the nation, which would be next to impossible.

I'm a liberal catholic and I echo

I disagree with a lot of what the religous right wants to do. So, in conclusion, fuck them. Personal opinion nothing more.

People like Jerry Falwell don't scare me, the fact that people believe and listen to people like Jerry Falwell scares me.

"We have sinned against Almighty God, at the highest level of our government, we've stuck our finger in your eye," said Robertson. "The Supreme Court has insulted you over and over again, Lord. They've taken your Bible away from the schools. They've forbidden little children to pray. They've taken the knowledge of God as best they can, and organizations have come into court to take the knowledge of God out of the public square of America." "

^Agreed.

I suppose you could call me a liberal that leans towards the middle. I'm not scared of religion. I believe in God, but I don't go to church.

I just like my religion to touch my government on my dinner plate. The two are better seperate. Our country was founded with many religion-based beliefs, but I think times change.

Re: What about religion, more importantly christianity scares you liberals out there?
 

It's not a straightforward question. It's a weasel question. You've created the presupposition that liberals are scared by religion. This is patently false: a good many liberals are religious, members of any number of faiths, and the balance of the remainder don't really care one way or another what religion someone is. You offer no proof whatsoever for your contention that liberals are "scared." Please do so before you craft another such loaded question. Secondly, you said "more importantly christianity" - Christianity is not a "more important" religion. It's a religion like any other, with the same merits and the same shortcomings.

Then why did you ask the question, other than perhaps trying to score some sort of point by painting liberals with a Coulter-esque brush, indicating that we're all godless heathens who need to be converted by force?

For a host of very simple reasons, most of which the posters prior to me have already elucidated. To recap: government should not promote one religion over the other, regardless of the beliefs of the members of that government. America's all about equality, remember? Christianity in particular (though certainly not the only one) is notorious for being anti-intellectual, promoting dogma that runs counter to empirical and scientific evidence. I've got a thick file of evidence should you require it. Christianity, finally, is one of the worst examples of the "church muscular" - the church, and by extension its members, can do no wrong if they invoke God in their cause. This belief led to the Crusades, among other historical atrocities. This and many other things make Christianity an unfit model for a national government.

Bottom line, your question was utterly ridiculous in its premise, insulting and misleading in its assertions, and disappointing in its utter transparency. Perhaps the question should have been "Why are you, Mojo_PeiPei, afraid of a secular world, more importantly, a world where secular humanism defines the scope and breadth of law?" It would have been just as legitimate a question. So... care to answer?

Very well said ctembreull.

I don't fear Christians. My Grandmother is a Christian and she's a truly wonderful human being. The only people liberals look at with suspicion are the convert-or-get-off-our-planet type extremists. So why do liberals in America most often discuss their suspicion of fundamentalist Christians specifically?

Well, it's natural to pay the most attention to your society's most powerful and influential religion. After all, if your society ever goes the repressive theocracy route; that, realistically, will be the religion that does it.

So if I were a liberal Malaysian or liberal Indonesian - I'd be most wary of the extreme Muslim clerics in my society. If I were a liberal Indian, I'd be wary of the extremist Hindus. They would represent the primary threat to the religious freedom of my community.

Am I, as an liberal in Australia, going to run around warning people about the rastafarian or zoroastrian takeover of the Government; or am I going to keep a watchful eye on Peter Jensen and Fred Nile?

No need to get all angry, people.

In some ways I feel it's a legitimate question (with some good responses btw). It certainly has the effect of bringing some good points to the foreground for discussion. It also is giving me personally a look into how some people think about religion in general.

In response:

1) I don't advocate some "fundamentalist" chrisitian government. Its all of your assumptions, that because I'm christian, I some how think everyone should be christian too is the exact reason I asked this question.

2) I couldn't agree more that government and religion don't mix. I don't like religion as an institution, it is ran by humans, who are by nature flawed.

You sir are misinformed. Before the Muslims took over the holylands they were in Christian control. So they attacked first, the christians were only attempting to regain what was once in their control.

1) I already answered about the political
2) whats wrong with people having religion in their lives that instills good principles like "Love thy Neighbor". Or Put Christianity aside, all religion have good stuff to say, they instill morals, this country could sure use some.
3) As far as reinstating christianity in this country although I would like it, I'm not here to force anything. As a christian I realize people have free will and its not my job to tell them how to live. But if this country forgets where it came from and who she was (what everyone is definently doing) then we are doomed to fall.

BTW while all you people knock the catholics church for her past sins, if it weren't for the church 1) we for sure would not be at the point we are now due to the Dark ages and 2) We all would probably be Spanish speaking muslims who are still stuck in the 12th century AD.

I am. I'm very afraid for the future of the country. Many hindu's think that india is a hindu nation and that it's a privilage for muslim's to live in the country. The party in power has many coalitions to these right wing religiously motivated parties.

I'd like to see that question answered too.

Actually, there's plenty of need to get angry.

1) The question was loaded. The words chosen were meant to exclude and encourage arguement rather than include and encourage debate.

2) There is a frightening trend in the U.S. brought about by an extremely vocal minority, that all things not Christian are immoral and evil, and thus should be illegal. Conversely, all things Christian are moral and good, and thus should be folded into the foundations of Civic and governmental practice.

3) I've studied and read about almost every religion that could be considered 'Major' currently practiced by humans on this planet. At the very core of their moral teachings they are all the same. The rituals and specifics of belief and practice differ from sect to sect (hell even from region to region within a sect). South American Catholicism is VERY different from European Catholicism. If people who supposedly worship the same God and profess a belief in the same faith can't get along with one another, how can imposing one religion above all others possibly work?

People don't fear Chrsitianity or Islam or Shinto, they fear what the people who want to make them the only option will do to them once they achieve their goals.

You don't need religion for morality.

Because God has played a big role in this country thus far and we have done fine with him. But hey lets go to Communist Russia, that was "secular", what a fine example of a secular government. Maybe Nazi Germany where the Reich and Furor were the only form of religion," In Germany, they first came for the communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't communist. Then they came for the jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a jew. They they came for the catholics. I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak up." Hitler removed religion, as did stalin... Whats the body count those two ass clowns are responsible for 100 million+?

are you afraid that the US infastructure will collapse and chaos will ensure without god?

No but we will go down a path that we can never get back from.

Actually yes, I am afraid of the moral choas that will ensue.. Ahh I can see it now... Partial Birth abortion, ahh fuck it if there is something wrong with the baby at birth lets decapitate it!!! And you know what, Hitler was onto a good idea with those Eugenics programs, lets create a perfect human, who cares if the "prototypes" are deformed, they are inconvienent and expendable. Hey I know something that could help the economy lets harvest the organs of aforementioned aborted children. Yes I can see it now.

The basis of this country's rule of law is secular philosophy, not religious ideology. However, I don't expect a politician to ignore his or her beliefs, nor do I expect him or her to stick strictly to a humanist approach.

Most of us aren't "afraid of influence." I'm apprehensive of the black-and-white Christian distinctions of good and evil, and religious justification of political action. I don't want a president who kills people because God told him to.

can you describle where we will be headed?

Excuse me, but when did the muslims hold Russia? The Baltic States? Finland?

Crusades went there too.

Two additional responses: Before the Christians, it was the Pagan Romans who controlled the Holy Land. Before the Romans it was The Babylonians. Before the Babylonians it was the Hebrews. Before the Hebrews there were various semitic tribes, who are now known collectively as "Palestinians." So perhaps we should roll the clock all the way back through human history and give the holy land back to the people who were truly there first.

And as a recovering Cathoholic, I'll knock it as much as I want, thank you very much. The Catholic Church of the Middle Ages accused people Like Galileo Galilei and Copernicus of Heresy for trying to think differently. It certainly didn't encourage experimentation and free thinking. Europe in generarl only moved out of the Dark Ages because people were tired of the Papal Bullshit that was going on and they had been enlightened by learning and ideas received from Muslims while in the Holy Land. Marco Polo would never have gone to China if the Muslims hadn't told him it was there in the first place. The best thing the Oppressive Catholicism of the middle ages did was make people despise its practices and look for a better way of doing things. Even my history teachers in a Catholic High School admitted that.

The moral choas that will ensue.. Ahh I can see it now... Partial Birth abortion, ahh fuck it if there is something wrong with the baby at birth lets decapitate it!!! And you know what, Hitler was onto a good idea with those Eugenics programs, lets create a perfect human, who cares if the "prototypes" are deformed, they are inconvienent and expendable. Hey I know something that could help the economy lets harvest the organs of aforementioned aborted children. Yes I can see it now.

Get some glasses, then. You're raving.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by erion
[B]Two additional responses: Before the Christians, it was the Pagan Romans who controlled the Holy Land. Before the Romans it was The Babylonians. Before the Babylonians it was the Hebrews. Before the Hebrews there were various semitic tribes, who are now known collectively as "Palestinians." So perhaps we should roll the clock all the way back through human history and give the holy land back to the people who were truly there first.

All true and all valid, but I am a firm believer in "To the victor go all the spoils". Christians lost and tried to get it back, can't blame for trying.

Morality <> Religion.

It is possible to have a moral compass, to know the difference between right and wrong, and have no faith in any God whatsoever. Just because people don't want to have a specific flavor of religion shoved down their throats does not make them an amoral monster.

The lack of a clear statement of Christian Values in our modern society is not what causes the problems so many people choose to equate with that. The problem with modern society, in my opinion, lies more with a lack of personal accountability (which is encouraged by blind faith -- the Lord proclaimeth, et cetera) than with a lack of organized religion in the civic arena.

I bet a lot of people stopped fearing mixing religion and politics after Mojo's post...

Hey people, war over religion is now okay!

@ XenuHubbard --

Which Post?

moral chaos just for you cuz i dont think i'll have one.

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
So...... might makes right. Interesting, if not original, philosophy. That absolves all the wonderful, joyful, things that the Europeans and United Stater's did to my ancestors. Blowback is a mofo.

2Wolves

According to that logic, when the Muslims conquered it, they should have received the "spoils." My point re: the Crusades, though, was larger than strictly territorial and geopolitical. It was this period that was characterized by the selling of indulgences (one of those things that pissed off Martin Luther), where a knight could go to his priest and basically say "Ok, padre, I'm gonna rape, pillage, and burn (in that order) my way across eastern Europe and the Middle East. What's that gonna cost me?" And the priest would name a price, the knight would pay it, and take off to do all those horrid things because God had "told" him it was OK. I was referring to the concept of the church muscular - that anything, no matter how horrid, is okay if you can find someone to tell you that God is on your side. For a more recent reference, try the bombing of abortion clinics. Or, for the Europeans among us, try either Northern Ireland or the Catholic Church's tacit support of Hitler's Holocaust.

It is these things that have no place in America. Will you now attempt to argue that they're not among a host of valid reasons to attempt to keep the extremes of religion away from civil government?

This is just a troll; It makes enough assumptions and generalizations to make my blood boil, which I assume is the point. But I will address the question.

The only thing that "scares" me are people that have this sort of attitude about their religion. Islamic and Christian fundamentalists are no different, except the former thrives in an area ravaged by land disputes and more conducive to violence. I have no doubt whatsoever that Christian fundamentalists would do the same sort of atrocious acts in the name of God, given the opportunity: bomb abortion clinics, and perform wholesale slaughter on "Liberals" who do not see things the same way.

Thankfully there are enough men and women of reason in this country who realize that their personal beliefs are just that -- personal, and just beliefs.

edit: fixed grave typo. :)

God's role and place are in the homes, hearts, and minds of American citizens - not in the letter or intent of laws.

Russia was a secular government, yep. But it wasn't an example of a secular humanist government. There's a difference; do you know what it is? Remember also that the intent of the Soviet Union was perfect equality, economic and social, for all its people. Pretty noble, that. Who's to say that a religious government, seeking equally noble goals, wouldn't wind up mirroring the USSR in most of the ways that count? Don't tell me it's because Christians are moral. Prove to me that a strictly spiritual government would be any better than a strictly secular one.

First off, it's spelled "F&uuml;hrer". And Hitler, just for your information, was a Christian. The Catholic Church quietly supported him during the years when he was massacring Jews. Also for your information, both sides of the Northern Ireland conflict are Christians. Don't go telling me that Christianity automatically implies a moral government.

The church most definently did not support the massacring of the jews, that is the biggest crock of bullshit ever pushed by Liberals to discredit the church. The only reason the church ever supported Hitler was in the early years and that was because he fervently opposed communism.

(I apologize for the angry tone, but historical ignorance is not an attractive thing, particularly in this matter.)

Really? Did you know that Hitler was a baptized Catholic, yet was never excommunicated? Did you know that Mein Kampf was never placed on the Church's list of banned books? Did you know that Pope Pius XII never commented as a matter of dogma upon the Holocaust? Did you know that the Catholic church has several centuries of anti-Semitic publications and rhetoric for which it has yet to apologize? Did you know that the Catholic Church has yet to apologize or seek forgiveness for its failure to speak or act on behalf of the Jews during the Holocaust? Here.

http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/hitler.htm
http://www.chn-net.com/news/edital.h...20Confessional

Go educate yourself. Now, what were you saying again?

How about you go educate yourself Pope Pius worked to save over 800,000 jews secretly. Several powerful and respected Jewish leaders have come to Pius' defense, the Head Rabbi of Rome converted to Christianity after the war out of respect for the pope. What about Golda Meir Israeli Prime Minister who lived during the time of the holocaust, she said ," When Fearful martydom came to our people in the decade of Nazi Terror, the voice of the pope was raised for the victims." What about Moshe Sharat the second Prime Minister of Israel ," I told Pope Pius XII that my first duty was to thank him and, through him, the Catholic Church on behlaf of the Jewish public for all they had done in the various countires to rescue Jews. WE ARE DEEPLY THANKFUL TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH."

None of this bullshit came out until a radical SOCIALIST German author tried to place the church and jews against each other, his name was Rolf Hochhuth and he was a member of HItler's youth group. Also notice how all the attacks against Pius are from non-Jewish sources??? Thats interesting.

Also not to long ago PJP II asked for forgiveness for the whole of the church for its centuries of anti-semitism and various sins throughout the ages.

Also Hitler may have been born or baptized a catholic, that doesn't make him one. Espcially considering how much he was into the occult, the man was definently not catholic.

Thank you, please drive through.

Your phrasing is.... curious.

1.. How about getting back 'on topic?'
2. Anyone surpised that this tread is heading straight to hell?

It's very, very, very difficult for a believer to examine the not so glowing aspects of their faith in a fair and balanced fashion but it can be kept civil. Let's try to not take personal offense at every turn shall we?

2Wolves

Just stop trying Mojo. Just stop. You're giving eveyone a headache here.

Everything you say to defend your cause has only been insulting to others here. We all know your stance and know you will not change it. This post can easily be said to have been made to start an argument.

And yes the Pope was known to have largely ignored the atrocities and let them occur, just as America did. The period then was very anti-semitic as to an extent it still is today.

It still fucking counts. Supporting someone who is content on wiping out an entire race of people... just because of your political idealology is bullshit.

Although I agree with what your saying, (not trying to cause controversy here) I think Hitler was only supported in the early days when he was rising to power.

Hitler's views were well known, though...

He worked behind the scenes with governments such as Hungary and Sweden. Very well, I'll grant you that some Jews were saved as a result of these clandestine actions. This doesn't alter the fact that he remained publicly silent during the Holocaust, when direct action could have saved the lives of so many more. That, in my book, constitutes nothing less than tacit support.

Um, what on earth did Pius XII ever say? That's the whole point: the Catholic Church stood mute. It failed to excommunicate Hitler, ban his book, or even raise its voice and its not-inconsiderable temporal political power in defense of the Jews. This is a documented fact stipulated to in literature both denouncing and supporting Pius XII.

This Rolf Hochhuth?

"A Protestant German playwright, Hochhuth's play, "The Deputy", (1964) aroused a storm of protest due to its condemnation of Pope Pius XII, for his failure to denounce Nazi anti-Jewish policies. The play, which was well documented, concluded that Pope Pius sacrificed morality for short term financial and political gain."

You can agree or disagree with him, but Hochhuth's accusations have stood the test of proof and time. It's a simple fact that Pius XII stood mute, and the Catholic Church with him, during the Holocaust. However many Jews he saved behind-the-scenes, how many more would he have saved had he simply acknowledged what was going on and using the Church's temporal political power to stop it? It's a legitimate question, one to which I've seen no good answers. If taking a stand would have been the moral thing to do, what does that make Pius XII's failure to take a stand?

This is an attempt to bring this thread back to why religion and government should never intertwine. Too often, religion, and Christianity in particular, acts counter-intellectually and does the immoral thing instead of the moral one. Too often, religion, and Christianity in particular, is used to justify the various ways in which men do evil. Too often, religion, and Christianity in general, has blinders that cause it to look the other way when atrocities and other horrifying acts occur. Pius XII is the best example of this, but there are many, many others througout recorded history.

Here is a question. What could the Pope have done? The Vatican was located in Facist Italy conviently close to Hitler. THe Vatican doesn't have a standing army, if the Pope would've spoke up what was to keep Mussilini(sp?) or Hitler from going in and cleaning house?

you really think the pope would've been killed by mussolini or hitler?

One of the chief assets of the Catholic Church is its nearly 1 billion members. In 1933, this number was probably less, though how much less, I'm not sure. Even assuming (probably incorrectly) that the number of Catholics in 1933 was 500,000,000 - that's still a whole mess of Catholics, primarily concentrated in Europe and the Americas. All Pius XII had to do was to expose the Holocaust publicly, and appeal to Catholics to take action to stop it. Excommunicating Hitler, who identified himself as a Catholic until the day he took his own life, would have been a good step. Publicly placing his book on its Index of Prohibited Literature would have been a rather interesting step, too. These sorts of actions would have represented a total repudiation of Hitler and his Final Solution. They would also have been simple yet definitive steps - with a word, or a speech, or even a papal encyclical or bull or even a pastoral directive, aggressively and publicly positioning the church against this evil, instead of letting it pass without comment or rancor.

Who's to say if it would have had any concrete, material effect on the number of Jews Hitler killed? That's the sort of calculus of death I'm not interested in. But in non-calculable terms, having the Church stand firmly against one of the worst massacres in human history would have certainly been the right - and moral - thing to do.

Interesting point!

Good thing Jesus remained silent in the face of political and religious animosity or he really would've been in for it...

I am a christian and what scares me about christianity are the acts of murder and violence that have been done in the past "in the name of God" and also all the wackos out there who think believing in God gives them the right to be judge and jury.

Well, Mojo already defended the crusades, and there was a healthy bit of Jew-killing going on there as well.
Remember, they killed Jesus!

What the Pope could have done?
More. So you're saying that a good Christian only speaks up when it's safe? You claim religion to be the basis for morals. Well, if ignoring the holocaust is a valid piece of Christian agenda, I don't want its morals.

The man saved 800,000 lives thats more then any other country or religion can say.

Um, the U.S. Army and its allies freed, according to estimates, 750,000 Jews from the concentration camps after the fall of Germany. So that claim doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. What I'm really not understanding, though, is why you've got such trouble admitting to Pius XII's crimes. The evidence is right there. One of the worst incidences of genocide occurred right in front of his face, and he said nothing at all. He acted privately, but he made no public comment and refused to use the power of his Church to educate and mobilize the world against Hitler's evil. Was that, do you think, moral?

Jesus knew he was going to die, death served his purpose. Would you guys really put it past Hitler, a man who killed MILLIONS, to go after Pius in Rome? He HATED Catholics, just look at what he did to the Polish. Anywho, what would he have been able to do??? People knew (in the late 30's) what Hitler was all about, why did the Pope have to spell it out? So I'll go along, lets say Pius would've spoken up then what? The church would get ass fucked cause they are in Facism's backyard, and the Allies still would have to make a push to Germany to free the Jews.

Religion is stupid, it aids the weak or those who do insuffecient thinking find a way of doing things, or find hope were they unable to muster up enough, or how to live amongst other things, your neighbor doesn't know to live but the prophet invariabley shall know.

Yeah, but those aren't real Christians, as opposed to Muslim wackos, who show you "just how crazy" they are over there....:rolleyes:

What annoys me about christians is their holier than thou attitude. That they have the moral high ground is idiotic at best. Why can't they understand the separation of church and state? It seems simple enough to me.
I'm SO glad I live in Canada and don't have to put up with most of that bullshit religion entering into politics.
I'm no liberal, and I'm in no way afraid of religious people.

Those are not real Muslims either....

I know I should just stay safely on the sidelines (I chose the name "lurkette" for a reason, but don't seem to have been able to live up to it) but I can't resist, there's just so much bullshit flying around.

Whether Hitler was supported by the Catholic church, or whether Russia was godless, etc etc etc, are largely irrelevant.

The basic question here (and a valid if originally poorly phrased one) seems to be why liberals tend to bristle at religion.

Mojo, some of your assumptions in your original post are a bit off-base, as a lot of people have already pointed out but that I'll reiterate here.

You say: "why do you harbor so much animosity towards the judeo-christian beliefs."

Well, it depends on WHICH Judeo-Christian beliefs you're talking about. If you're talking about love thy neighbor as thyself, turn the other cheek, walk a mile in his shoes, give him the cloak off your back, then I think a lot of liberals espouse some very Christian beliefs. As has been pointed out, a lot of liberals are themselves Christian. What we object to is the brand of Christianity that pulls out certain beliefs and scriptures and interprets them in a very particular way, and then claims to have The Literal Truth about what God wants us all to do. The problem most liberals have with Christianity, is, as people have said, when these particular (and, usually, particularly narrow) interpretations start to be shoved down our throats through attempted legislation of behavior.

And your assumptions about where this country will go without a particular conservative interpretation of God at the helm are just a bit far-fetched. There's a whole field of study called "ethics" that has nothing to do with religion and that concerns itself with a lot of the issues you bring up - abortion, eugenics, genocide, etc.

And the passage you quote about "when they came for me there was no-one left to speak up" has a lot less to do with religion than it does with championing those who are different from you against the forces of hatred, about not standing back and letting others be abused and eliminated because it doesn't directly affect you. Not a concept you'll find often in public discourse of conservative Christians in this country.

We might turn the question back around and ask "why are conservative/fundamentalist Christians afraid of secular humanism"? If you can come up with reasoned, educated and supportable answers I'd love to discuss it.

Just so I can answer the way I think I want to; and maybe even learn something what is the difference (if any) between Judea-Christianity and Christianity? I've been hearing the first used allot on political talk shows of late.

Alot of the same principles. Basically it really has to do with how Christianity through Jesus expands on Judaism.

I was being sarcastic, thus the roll eyes.

Hey... I already asked him that. :p

Conservative Christianity? Yeah, it scares me.

It scares me how people shove aside their conscience to accomodate the teachings of a book written by and for societies centuries and centuries ago.

The Bible was used to defend slavery (Ham's lineage was cursed because of his shameful conduct toward his father, Noah). It was used to keep women from voting and having jobs (Paul's admonishment against allowing women to have positions of power in the church, various verses that tell women to serve their husbands faithfully), it was used to prevent biracial marriage (the Noah thing again), and today it's the single most influential reason why homosexuality is still taboo all over the country.

I used to be a Christian. I knew the Bible inside out; I led worship, I held prayer meetings. Over time I began to realize that I didn't actually LIKE God very much. Then I began to realize that there really weren't any empirical reasons to believe in Him.

Christians are very fond of separating God from the church: "The church is a flawed institution," they say. "The church is human, and humans are sinners." Well, yeah, that keeps God high and dry, but the flawed sinner humans are the ones who are running around making life tough for others. I'm afraid of Christianity because it makes Christians mean, closed-minded, and afraid to think for themselves.

The rapture isn't a very nice thing. It's the whole ideal that the world is coming to an end and, literally, come hell or high water only certain people will be saved. Mojo has expressed this belief, or forcast rather, that America is "doomed". We're all doomed, whats with that? I don't like it at all. I can be a great person but if I lie to my anal boss I'm supposed to go repent OR ELSE. I'm more afraid of losing my job.
I feel that some religions breed fear. We've all heard the label "God fearing Christian". I don't want to be afraid and I try to be a happy while not having yet chosen a religion but when you have people always telling you you are doomed it is well, kinda scary. . . but it's more annoying than anything.

But I wonder, is it really an attempt to save? Or is it a scare tactic so that more money can be collected.

When I do choose I know it won't be Christianity. I can't say a lot about the American government right now but I can say that I like secular laws. I like to be skeptically optimistic and I can definately say with confidence that I am not doomed.

I agree with most of the people posting about separation of church and state. About using God as justification for doing crazy things. This is all I felt like I could offer that would be different.

*I edited religion breeds fear to some religions breed fear. . . just trying not to step on too many toes here*

Too often religions, most of them, appear to be telling their followers "don't think" and "do what I say".

I call that scary.

Thanks for listening.

I'm not bible bumping here, obviously God isn't going to send some massive plague to annihilate America. I'd say like any Nation we have peaked, once the Liberal influence grows to powerful in any civilization inner turmoil begins to wreak havoc, whether or not you agree with me its your beef.

I would also like to apologize if I did offend anyone, that was not my intention. I know I phrased my question a little harshly, but hey it got all of us thinking and talking, and it wasn't all that uncivil.

I wont say what I want to say here because I will probably get another warning or possibly banned.

I want to know how liberals are going to wreak havoc to civilization. Liberals want social programs to help people that need help. I think you need to read that bible you are using as a hammer to pound your ideas down peoples throats and see that your Jesus was a socialist. Your religion wants to take from the rich and provide for the poor. That is what your religion is based on. It even says that no rich man will enter heaven. Where that quote is I don't remember. I have not read it in years but it is there.

I think if more bible readers actually followed more of the philosophy behind the bible and less of trying to prove the written word in the bible, we would be better off.

Mojo; please specify. Previous examples where liberalism caused turmoil?

Northern Europe is still standing.

I definately agree with this.

Re: What about religion, more importantly christianity scares you liberals out there???
 

Eh? You hint that fear is the only reason why someone would harbor animosity against it. Thats dumb.

I hate parsnips. Don't mean I'm afraid of them.
I hate racists but as a white middle class man they present no danger to me.

I dislike christianty and come to think of it I am afraid of it because its irrational. Irrational people are capeable of the worst attrocities.

For a moment let us compare and contrast the Founding Fathers of the United States with King George III. Liberal? Founding Fathers. Conservative? KGIII. Perspective is wonderful, you should try to get some. All men equal? FF. Royalty and privelege? KGIII. Rule of Law? FF. Rule of God give right to throne? KGIII

(you may have sensed a pattern developing....)

If you'd like there are lots more.

2Wolves

-Bush spits

Okay...I'm going to make a somewhat insulting generalization and if you don't like it then it's your problem.

Then I'm going to apologize and tell you it wasn't my intention to offend you even though I knew the statement was insulting.

And then I'm going to explain that even if you were offended, hey, don't get angry...it's all in the name of good conversation, and besides I was insulting you in a really really nice way.

"I'm not scared by it, but blah blah blah...". I just think that it should be kept as far away from the government as possible. To much Catholic backing in the government would lead to discrimination against far to many minorities, and it is the governments job to look out for the little guys...well the liberal government at least

To much change too fast causes turmoil, the only way America will ever fall is from the inside. Further more if you think that liberal/socialists are compassionate warm-hearted people you have been duped, its all politics, and they buy votes with tax money through broken social programs. It's really easy to be compassionate with someone else's money.

In the politics forum? Shocking.

2Wolves

Mojo; you still haven't answered my question. What civilizations have collapsed so far due to liberal agendas?

Rome is a perfect example, they became mass hedonists and were of a much different nature then in their early years. I'm not going to say Liberalism was the only thing to bring them down, outside problems like barbarians definetly didn't help.

*sigh

What brought down rome is a superbly complex question...and "hedonism" is not the simple answer. Inflation, over expansion, breakdown of army discipline, and the conflict over Christianity all played roles. [sarcasm]So, perhaps we should fear Christianity for what it might to do destroy our civilzation? [/sarcasm]

Traditionalist Roman Conservativism destroyed the Roman Republic, because all that Cato and his goons could think to do when confronted with rising opposition was resort to short-sighted knee-jerk reactions. A bit like conservatives today in that respect. And so, what was a reasonably good mixed constitution republic by ancient standards fell to authoritarianism. Wow, the conservative agenda is so much better than liberals.

Conservatives are the ones that bring down civilizations, because they try to stop change and maintain their peaceful little status quo. No, its not going to work in the long term, but since conservatives have short memories they don't notice that they keep losing everything because they try and fight the future.

As for liberals fearing Christianity, blurk. Christianity pisses me off more than it scares me. Keep it as far away from the government as possible. It can't be trusted.

"Faith" is an action, based on a belief.
Christianity-ie, the determined adherence to the teachings and instruction of the Christ (Messiah), and modeling of the adherent's life to that of the example of the Christ (Messiah). is not supposed to be a "Religion", it is supposed to be a way of life.
Institutionalizing this way of life lead to traditions, corruption and forced actions of others to a way of life which by definition is a personal choice.
Jesus did not demand that anyone follow Him. He invited them to follow Him. His Apostles taught the same thing- that following the teachings of the Messiah of Israel resulted in peace of mind, body and spirit, refreshing tof the spirit and soul, communication with God through Jesus and blessings upon the adherent, the adherent's children and spouse.
The main and consistent teaching of Jesus was to Love God with all your heart , mind and spirit, and in so doing, you would love your neighbor (those you came into contact with) and yourself as a unique and wonderful creation of a very loving God, and receive salvation from your sins.
This salvation was not a meritorious award. It was not a reward for good works done or points earned. The beauty in the teachings of Jesus is that salvation and communion with a very loving God was available to everyone as a free gift from God to His children by way of the work that JESUS accomplished.
Catholicism and Christianity are two completely different animals.
According to the book of Jude, Jesus is the only High Priest needed to intercess between God and Man.
The Crusades and Inquisition were a concoction of the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. The witch hunts were the concoction of the misguided people who forgot that Jesus was in charge and His followers were to do as He commanded, not take matters into their own hands.
The Christ (Messiah) taught patience, love, kindness and reliance upon a God who is in control of things and worth deferring to. He taught abandoning conventional thinking in order to gain real insight and wisdom and an abundant life through God.
All other teachers and philosophers spoke of many things that contained much truth, but ultimately, they all demanded that although they knew the truth, they truth began someplace other than them. Jesus was the only one who demanded that He WAS the truth and the only way to get to heaven and gain salvation was through HIM.
That upsets a lot of people who think they can tell God how to run things and that they are the arbitors of their own salvation.
It is understandable, but ultimately undo-able.

Being a Liberal who believes in God (I wouldn't say that I fit into a traditional Christian category) I think that the problem is the same as with everything else. Those who hold a belief have a tendency to want to force that belief onto other people. It's not just Christianity, it's any religion with extremist elements. Islamic nations with extremist rulers kill anyone who doesn't agree with them. Our president won't give AIDS relief money to any country that allows abortion. They're both killing people with their fundamentalism, just in different ways and differnt places.

Sez Lurkette
I'm interested too.
I'm afraid of shorsighted, lazy people. People who will listen to the person on the pulpit tell them what "their" god is all about rather than actually read their holy book. I'm afraid of people who pick and choose select verses from the bible to take out of context and use to justify bigotry.
Maybe this is bad forum manners, but on the "the two most controversial issues in politics!!" thread you implied that history will vindicate probirthers just as it did abolitionists. Not to pull out the slavery card, but how many "god fearing, moral" christians does it take to enslave a race of people?
Not to imply that christianity was solely responsible for slavery, but slavery era south hardly strikes me as liberal.

Religion doesn't scare me, what scares me is when the government starts favoring a specific religion. Its just kinda frightening considering the kind of overt and subconcious power a government has to consider the sort of influence that would weild. I mean, how many Christians out there think they would still be Christian if they were born and raised in in Iraq or Afghanistan? Beyond that look at what governments that become religious have done in its name? Finally, lets talk about protecting religion from government influence. When breaking laws and committing sins start to become the same thing...

*shivers in fear*

People are scared of persecution. Period. You'd be surprised the number of fundamentalists in this country...especially if you live in select parts of the south.

Amen, Brother!

Heh. It bothers me when people say that they are scared of the truth (religion being said "truth"), when in reality, they're just scared of being stoned to death.

Yeah...I'm coming to the uncomfortable conclusion that fear is probably the greatest motivating factor in our society.

...I would disagree.

First sex.
THEN fear.
Then power.

What scares me is the 25 million deaths christianity caused, thats on average of 62,000 per year in the existance of this church of peace.

Agreed...and also try select parts of the midwest. Sometimes these fundies make me laugh...most of the time though, they scare me shitless.

I live in a largely secular country, in a largely secular continent and an entirely secular personal world. I dont fear religion because most simply do not care for outdated beliefs designed to make them scared enough to do what they are told.

The power is not their and any reference is actually politically stamped down, tony blair himself was reprimanded on the fact of his suggesting he will be judged by god, labour (the main political party here) apparently does not 'do god.'

I fear the politcal power of christianity, its restrictive beliefs and the southern attitudes that I have no control over but lead to brit soldiers fighting an unjust war.

Whoosh! I tried - really, I did - to read each and every message in this thread. But I simply couldn't. It became just so much "I know what you REALLY mean" with responses of "The HELL you do!" with an occasional variation inserted. Sort of like political debates have become lately. Some civility, but not much accomplished. At least for this reader. Long ago I determined that my job in life is not to convert anyone to my beliefs or ways of reasoning. At the same time, whlile I am willing to listen (unless YELLED at), I am willing to accept other viewpoints - unless they involve forced change or violence. We each have a life to live. Do it in a way which makes you happy and doesn't intrude upon others..... unless invited.

This is funny. Ctrembull proves that false, and then you give an example of a Pope saving some jews. But that in no way strikes down Ctrembull's point, that shows that, at one point, Christians did indeed support the massacring [sic] of jews. If one Christian kills a jew, but one Christian saves a jew, the statement "Some Christian's kill jews" is still a valid statement.

How about "Because pagan's, heathen's, and human secularists are not wont to pick up rifles and assassinate those they object to?"


Some Christians, like some Islamists, have no compunction against murder because their ghawd tells them it's ok.

Keep your murderous religion to yourself and let me alone.

2Wolves

Little overstated, don't you think? I can certainly find secular assasains... Nor does the adjective "murderous" have any place in making a blanket description of a faith.

Irresponsiblity to reality is not an endearing quality, mmkay?

If the Native American Indians had done a better job of defending their land from white Europeans; would they, too, be considered genocidal racists?

Funny thing is, that's the way they were portrayed in the media at the time - and that cynical, stereotypical, and just-plain-wrongheaded view stayed around until the mid-to-late 20th century.

That said, what has this to do with religion and government?

Most likely yes since they are not white Europeans and the christian views at the time led to the genocides so undoubtably they would have recieved something like that.

Genocide literally means systematically trying to destroy a group. I highly doubt the Native Americans would have been viewed as such seeing as they were almost entirely trying to retain their land and way of life. Only after it became clear that the only way that could happen is by going to war against the European Americans did any systematic effort begin and even then there was no intent to destroy the group beyond what was needed to retain their status quo.