How American Christians can stop being bullies and start winning converts

[Impaler]

A god in general wouldn't be, but as I said earlier, I believe a creator has a special status, because duties (the basis of deontological ethics) are the flip side of rights, and I believe that a being can be created with limitations on its rights.

I categorically deny that that a creator can deny rights to his creations, this is the thinking which has animated slavery, genocide and every from of barbarism history has ever known.  That any person in our century would deny the basis of inalienable human rights shocks me.

Your logic here seems to be that being 'created' confers reduced right and elevated duties, aka you are your creators bith.  While our lucky 'First Mover Creator' is untainted by having been created and has absolute rights to the point of dictating morality itself and no duties what so ever.  This is the most disgusting cosmic patriarchy imaginable, it denies any morality that dose not flow from power and status alone.  A god that is an 'exception' to it's own moral code simply because it was the creator of said code is a flaming hypocrite, the code in question is rubbish because it rests on the moral authority of a hypocrite.



Also in the last few pages you two have been arguing over of acting on the orders of an all-knowing, good-willing agent that orders massive harm (god, phyco-history, time-travelers take your pick), this is basically an extreme ends-justify-means constitutionalism argument.  Jarl seems to agree with Consequences justifying actions, but he denies that we not-all-knowing individuals would ever be able to be convinced of that absolute infallibility and or good-will (and truthfulness I'd like to point out) of this agent to every justifiably act upon these orders.  A kind of moral Heisenberg-uncertainty principle shielding us from an obligation to obey the order to do harm even though we may be committed consequentialist.

I would go a step further and say that my own judgment is that certain levels of harmful acts (such as genocide) are incapable of being contributors to a future that could be called 'better in the long run'.  I think everyone would agree that their exists some point beyond which a harmful act can only have ultimately harmful ends, maybe that point is 'global therm o-nuclear war' or 'causing the sun to go super-nova' but we as imperfect reasoners as we are can come to definitive conclusions about such extreme cases and conclude that any entity that tells us these acts would have good ends is simply lying.

But Yitzi now seems to be switching tracks to 'deontological ethics', which (after goggle to the rescue) is the basis that actions are ethical not because of consequences but because of duty, and in this context it is the duty to obey god.  This is really a completely separate tract of reasoning that DENIES the validity of the whole earlier argument over consequences.

[Yitzi]

I categorically deny that that a creator can deny rights to his creations, this is the thinking which has animated slavery, genocide and every from of barbarism history has ever known.

No it isn't; those are generally animated by saying that the rights do not exist even if the creator does not deny those rights, or that the creator has denied far more rights than I would ever claim.

That any person in our century would deny the basis of inalienable human rights shocks me.

What is the basis of inalienable human rights?  The Declaration of Independence says that it's that God has created people with those rights, but that would mean that it is God's decision to make them, and the rights are inalienable to humans but not to God.  So that's clearly not the basis you're talking about.  So what basis are you talking about, and why is that, rather than "God created people with those rights" the proper basis?

Your logic here seems to be that being 'created' confers reduced right and elevated duties, aka you are your creators bith.

Well, it depends what the creator in question wants to confer; I believe that God has conferred almost exactly the rights that you believe in, the only difference being reserving rights for Himself.

to the point of dictating morality itself

I never claimed that; there is the utilitarian side, which God does not dictate.

A god that is an 'exception' to it's own moral code simply because it was the creator of said code is a flaming hypocrite, the code in question is rubbish because it rests on the moral authority of a hypocrite.

How is it hypocrisy to give rights but reserve an exception for yourself?  If you say that the rights are intrinsically mandated to everyone else but not you, that's hypocrisy.  But if you grant the rights without appeal to some higher-than-yourself mandate, then I see no hypocrisy.

Also in the last few pages you two have been arguing over of acting on the orders of an all-knowing, good-willing agent that orders massive harm (god, phyco-history, time-travelers take your pick), this is basically an extreme ends-justify-means constitutionalism argument.

Yeah, I believe that ends-justifying-means can, in theory, apply to any means given sufficient ends.

Jarl seems to agree with Consequences justifying actions, but he denies that we not-all-knowing individuals would ever be able to be convinced of that absolute infallibility and or good-will (and truthfulness I'd like to point out) of this agent to every justifiably act upon these orders.  A kind of moral Heisenberg-uncertainty principle shielding us from an obligation to obey the order to do harm even though we may be committed consequentialist.

Interesting argument, but I would argue that the level of convincing that would be required does not depend on the extremity of the means, but only the proportion by which the ends exceed those required to justify those means.

I think everyone would agree that their exists some point beyond which a harmful act can only have ultimately harmful ends, maybe that point is 'global therm o-nuclear war' or 'causing the sun to go super-nova'

Nope; if causing the sun to go supernova would spare a galaxy full of sentients from a horrible deadly plague, that's not an ultimately harmful end.  There is no point beyond which a harmful act cannot have good results.

But Yitzi now seems to be switching tracks to 'deontological ethics', which (after goggle to the rescue) is the basis that actions are ethical not because of consequences but because of duty, and in this context it is the duty to obey god.

You misunderstand me; I am not "switching tracks" so much as running on parallel tracks simultaneously.  The deontological argument (which is what any "inalienable rights" argument must use, due to rights being the flip side of duties) and the utilitarian argument (dealing with consequences, and which can be nontrivially applied even to God) are two independent issues at hand, which call for completely different approaches.

[Buster's Uncle]

Why do so many liberals despise Christianity?
Liberals increasingly want to enforce a comprehensive, uniformly secular vision of the human good. And they see alternative visions of the good as increasingly intolerable.
The Week
By Damon Linker | 6:06am ET   



Many of the health care workers assisting Ebola patients are missionaries. So what?  (REUTERS/Jo Dunlop/UNICEF/Handout via Reuters)



Liberalism seems to have an irrational animus against Christianity. Consider these two stories highlighted in the last week by conservative Christian blogger Rod Dreher.

Item 1: In a widely discussed essay in Slate, author Brian Palmer writes about the prevalence of missionary doctors and nurses in Africa and their crucial role in treating those suffering from Ebola. Palmer tries to be fair-minded, but he nonetheless expresses "ambivalence," "suspicion," and "visceral discomfort" about the fact that these men and women are motivated to make "long-term commitments to address the health problems of poor Africans," to "risk their lives," and to accept poor compensation (and sometimes none at all) because of their Christian faith.

The question is why he considers this a problem.

Palmer mentions a lack of data and an absence of regulatory oversight. But he's honest enough to admit that these aren't the real reasons for his concern. The real reason is that he doesn't believe that missionaries are capable "of separating their religious work from their medical work," even when they vow not to proselytize their patients. And that, in his view, is unacceptable — apparently because he's an atheist and religion creeps him out. As he puts it, rather wanly, "It's great that these people are doing God's work, but do they have to talk about Him so much?"

That overriding distaste for religion leads Palmer to propose a radical corollary to the classical liberal ideal of a separation between church and state — one that goes far beyond politics, narrowly construed. Palmer thinks it's necessary to uphold a separation of "religion and health care."

Item 2: Gordon College, a small Christian school north of Boston, is facing the possibility of having its accreditation revoked by the higher education commission of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, according to an article in the Boston Business Journal. Since accreditation determines a school's eligibility to participate in federal and state financial aid programs, and the eligibility of its students to be accepted into graduate programs and to meet requirements for professional licensure, revoking a school's accreditation is a big deal — and can even be a death sentence.

What has Gordon College done to jeopardize its accreditation? It has chosen to enforce a "life and conduct statement" that forbids "homosexual practice" on campus.

Now, one could imagine a situation in which such a statement might legitimately run afoul of an accreditation board or even anti-discrimination statutes and regulations — if, for example, it stated that being gay is a sign of innate depravity and that students who feel same-sex attraction should be subject to punishment for having such desires.

But that isn't the case here. At all. In accordance with traditional Christian teaching, Gordon College bans all sexual relationships outside of marriage, gay or straight, and it goes out of its way to say that its structures against homosexual acts apply only to behavior and not to same-sex desires or orientation.

The accreditation board is not so much objecting to the college's treatment of gays as it is rejecting the legitimacy of its devoutly Christian sexual beliefs.

The anti-missionary article and the story of Gordon College's troubles are both examples (among many others) of contemporary liberalism's irrational animus against religion in general and traditional forms of Christianity in particular.

My use of the term "irrational animus" isn't arbitrary. The Supreme Court has made "irrational animus" a cornerstone of its jurisprudence on gay rights. A law cannot stand if it can be shown to be motivated by rationally unjustifiable hostility to homosexuals, and on several occasions the court has declared that traditional religious objections to homosexuality are reducible to just such a motive.

But the urge to eliminate Christianity's influence on and legacy within our world can be its own form of irrational animus. The problem is not just the cavalier dismissal of people's long-established beliefs and the ways of life and traditions based on them. The problem is also the dogmatic denial of the beauty and wisdom contained within those beliefs, ways of life, and traditions. (You know, the kind of thing that leads a doctor to risk his life and forego a comfortable stateside livelihood in favor of treating deadly illness in dangerous, impoverished African cities and villages, all out of a love for Jesus Christ.)

Contemporary liberals increasingly think and talk like a class of self-satisfied commissars enforcing a comprehensive, uniformly secular vision of the human good. The idea that someone, somewhere might devote her life to an alternative vision of the good — one that clashes in some respects with liberalism's moral creed — is increasingly intolerable.

That is a betrayal of what's best in the liberal tradition.

Liberals should be pleased and express gratitude when people do good deeds, whether or not those deeds are motivated by faith. They should also be content to give voluntary associations (like religious colleges) wide latitude to orient themselves to visions of the human good rooted in traditions and experiences that transcend liberal modernity — provided they don't clash in a fundamental way with liberal ideals and institutions.

In the end, what we're seeing is an effort to greatly expand the list of beliefs, traditions, and ways of life that fundamentally clash with liberalism. That is an effort that no genuine liberal should want to succeed.

What happened to a liberalism of skepticism, modesty, humility, and openness to conflicting notions of the highest good? What happened to a liberalism of pluralism that recognizes that when people are allowed to search for truth in freedom, they are liable to seek and find it in a multitude of values, beliefs, and traditions? What happened to a liberalism that sees this diversity as one of the finest flowers of a free society rather than a threat to the liberal democratic order?

I don't have answers to these questions — and frankly, not a lot hinges on figuring out how we got here. What matters is that we acknowledge that something in the liberal mind has changed, and that we act to recover what has been lost.

http://theweek.com/article/index/269462/why-do-so-many-liberals-despise-christianity

---

Because conservatives say imaginative things like this article.  See also the first article in this thread.

[JarlWolf]

The problem I have with most missionary type groups is that they DO enforce their religion onto those they help, otherwise they reject helping said person or are a lot less hospitable, or even more overbearing with their faith to try and change their mind.

Build a tool shed for a town in a day, but spend the rest of the week stuffing your faith down their throats... I don't know. Charity is supposed to be about giving, not expanding one's influence...

[Yitzi]

Why do so many liberals despise Christianity?
Liberals increasingly want to enforce a comprehensive, uniformly secular vision of the human good. And they see alternative visions of the good as increasingly intolerable.
The Week
By Damon Linker | 6:06am ET   



Many of the health care workers assisting Ebola patients are missionaries. So what?  (REUTERS/Jo Dunlop/UNICEF/Handout via Reuters)



Liberalism seems to have an irrational animus against Christianity. Consider these two stories highlighted in the last week by conservative Christian blogger Rod Dreher.

Item 1: In a widely discussed essay in Slate, author Brian Palmer writes about the prevalence of missionary doctors and nurses in Africa and their crucial role in treating those suffering from Ebola. Palmer tries to be fair-minded, but he nonetheless expresses "ambivalence," "suspicion," and "visceral discomfort" about the fact that these men and women are motivated to make "long-term commitments to address the health problems of poor Africans," to "risk their lives," and to accept poor compensation (and sometimes none at all) because of their Christian faith.

The question is why he considers this a problem.

Palmer mentions a lack of data and an absence of regulatory oversight. But he's honest enough to admit that these aren't the real reasons for his concern. The real reason is that he doesn't believe that missionaries are capable "of separating their religious work from their medical work," even when they vow not to proselytize their patients. And that, in his view, is unacceptable — apparently because he's an atheist and religion creeps him out. As he puts it, rather wanly, "It's great that these people are doing God's work, but do they have to talk about Him so much?"

That overriding distaste for religion leads Palmer to propose a radical corollary to the classical liberal ideal of a separation between church and state — one that goes far beyond politics, narrowly construed. Palmer thinks it's necessary to uphold a separation of "religion and health care."

Item 2: Gordon College, a small Christian school north of Boston, is facing the possibility of having its accreditation revoked by the higher education commission of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, according to an article in the Boston Business Journal. Since accreditation determines a school's eligibility to participate in federal and state financial aid programs, and the eligibility of its students to be accepted into graduate programs and to meet requirements for professional licensure, revoking a school's accreditation is a big deal — and can even be a death sentence.

What has Gordon College done to jeopardize its accreditation? It has chosen to enforce a "life and conduct statement" that forbids "homosexual practice" on campus.

Now, one could imagine a situation in which such a statement might legitimately run afoul of an accreditation board or even anti-discrimination statutes and regulations — if, for example, it stated that being gay is a sign of innate depravity and that students who feel same-sex attraction should be subject to punishment for having such desires.

But that isn't the case here. At all. In accordance with traditional Christian teaching, Gordon College bans all sexual relationships outside of marriage, gay or straight, and it goes out of its way to say that its structures against homosexual acts apply only to behavior and not to same-sex desires or orientation.

The accreditation board is not so much objecting to the college's treatment of gays as it is rejecting the legitimacy of its devoutly Christian sexual beliefs.

The anti-missionary article and the story of Gordon College's troubles are both examples (among many others) of contemporary liberalism's irrational animus against religion in general and traditional forms of Christianity in particular.

My use of the term "irrational animus" isn't arbitrary. The Supreme Court has made "irrational animus" a cornerstone of its jurisprudence on gay rights. A law cannot stand if it can be shown to be motivated by rationally unjustifiable hostility to homosexuals, and on several occasions the court has declared that traditional religious objections to homosexuality are reducible to just such a motive.

But the urge to eliminate Christianity's influence on and legacy within our world can be its own form of irrational animus. The problem is not just the cavalier dismissal of people's long-established beliefs and the ways of life and traditions based on them. The problem is also the dogmatic denial of the beauty and wisdom contained within those beliefs, ways of life, and traditions. (You know, the kind of thing that leads a doctor to risk his life and forego a comfortable stateside livelihood in favor of treating deadly illness in dangerous, impoverished African cities and villages, all out of a love for Jesus Christ.)

Contemporary liberals increasingly think and talk like a class of self-satisfied commissars enforcing a comprehensive, uniformly secular vision of the human good. The idea that someone, somewhere might devote her life to an alternative vision of the good — one that clashes in some respects with liberalism's moral creed — is increasingly intolerable.

That is a betrayal of what's best in the liberal tradition.

Liberals should be pleased and express gratitude when people do good deeds, whether or not those deeds are motivated by faith. They should also be content to give voluntary associations (like religious colleges) wide latitude to orient themselves to visions of the human good rooted in traditions and experiences that transcend liberal modernity — provided they don't clash in a fundamental way with liberal ideals and institutions.

In the end, what we're seeing is an effort to greatly expand the list of beliefs, traditions, and ways of life that fundamentally clash with liberalism. That is an effort that no genuine liberal should want to succeed.

What happened to a liberalism of skepticism, modesty, humility, and openness to conflicting notions of the highest good? What happened to a liberalism of pluralism that recognizes that when people are allowed to search for truth in freedom, they are liable to seek and find it in a multitude of values, beliefs, and traditions? What happened to a liberalism that sees this diversity as one of the finest flowers of a free society rather than a threat to the liberal democratic order?

I don't have answers to these questions — and frankly, not a lot hinges on figuring out how we got here. What matters is that we acknowledge that something in the liberal mind has changed, and that we act to recover what has been lost.

http://theweek.com/article/index/269462/why-do-so-many-liberals-despise-christianity

---

Because conservatives say imaginative things like this article.  See also the first article in this thread.

I think it's more fundamental than that.  Liberalism is, as the name implies, fundamentally about personal liberty.  And one of the fundamental concepts behind Abrahamic religion (Christianity actually less so than other forms, though I would argue that that itself makes it less Abrahamic) is that God's will trumps personal liberty.

Essentially, liberals dislike rules, and Abrahamic religion is primarily about rules.

[Green1]

Unitarian Universalism teaches tolerance and that actions matter more than beliefs. That would probably be the only real compromise out there. Basically, believe what you want but do not be a [feminine washing] or force your stuff on someone else.

Problem is, if you read through these "holy books" and take them literally, there is no room for tolerance. The problem is zealots While I would hope folks would do the right thing regardless of a belief in god/gods or not, many religious institutions are threatened by any opposing belief. They even encourage or hint towards the idea that anyone opposed to what they think is at best a bad person or at worst an evil force that must be destroyed regardless of love or anything.

Case in point.

I live in Louisiana as some of you guys who follow my posts know. Specifically the capitol of Baton Roge though I also lived in New Orleans for many years as well. In the major cities, people are fairly lax. New Orleans they really do not care and Baton Rouge some care but you probably will not get slammed for non belief. Outside in the rural areas, though... RUN!!! this is in the USA too!

I happen to know a guy named Jerry DeWitt. He was a Pentecostal preacher inspired by the then powerful Jimmy Swaggart before all the scandals with Swaggart getting busted with prostitutes in seedy sections of New Orleans off Airline Drive. Jerry did what most preachers did. Most of the churches that pay preachers well are already taken. folks die and retire there. Not that anyone would blame them. So, he and his family lived like gypsies speaking at church tochurch across multiple states until he got a poverty level gig as an associate pastor at a church in a small town called Deritter, LA.

Deritter was a town that had more churches than actual businesses and God and church permeated everyday life of almost every citizen in the city and surrounding parishes. Folks got him a sweet job for the city as a building inspector so he could afford a house for him and his wife. He knew everyone and developed friendships. Problem was, he started to doubt his faith. He cared for people but wondered why if he prayed, he could not cure folks like the bigtime preachers said you could with faith. He poured over religious texts and found hatred, bigotry, and little to do with love. On the sly, he went to the nearest semi-decent town of Lake Charles and hooked up with the local Atheist group.

Eventually though, he was outed! Of course, he could not preach anymore. Also, He lost his job for the city (everyone working for th city was a bigtime member of some church) and his wife left him.

Things are going a bit different fo rJerry now. He got help from Richard Dawkin's ex-clergy project and now speaks at events around the country. He is in no danger anymore of losing his house and now runs a Community Chapel for atheists that live in that area since the closest community atheist friendly gathering point with an actual building is the UU in Baton Rouge or a UU way in Houston TX.

BUT... all has not gone well!!! He can not get a building to rent regardless of 1st amendment protections! Also, the latest drama, folks have been putting hate mail in the boxes of attendees!!!!

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/10/atheist-family-receives-terrorist-threats-in-louisiana/

[Yitzi]

Unitarian Universalism teaches tolerance and that actions matter more than beliefs. That would probably be the only real compromise out there. Basically, believe what you want but do not be a [feminine washing]or force your stuff on someone else.

Actually, you can have tolerance (regarding those not belonging to one's own group) within Abrahamic religion, though that is based on a lack of universalism.  (Actions mattering more than beliefs is not only compatible with Abrahamic religion, but probably the predominant approach in it, though both are still important except in some forms of Christianity.)

Problem is, if you read through these "holy books" and take them literally, there is no room for tolerance.

Well, the Hebrew Bible alone is fine with tolerance of foreign gentiles, under a "not my problem" approach; it is only when universalism is added that tolerance becomes completely unworkable.

He cared for people but wondered why if he prayed, he could not cure folks like the bigtime preachers said you could with faith.

I'd say that's a reason to doubt the bigtime preachers, not the faith itself.

He poured over religious texts and found hatred, bigotry, and little to do with love.

Then he was probably looking in the wrong places or not reading correctly.  Christianity in particular has a lot about tolerance.

[Green1]

Universalism becomes unworkable only because it messes with the whole concept of "we are right". If there are many choices, why would anyone choose the more restrictive or less fun one? Why, it should not even be POSSIBLE to be moral without their belief system and structure Because it is RIGHT and the other choices are wrong (so you are told). Now, there is acceptance of sorts in being on the "right" side and knowing you have information that makes everyone else wrong or destined to burn or other manner of horrible fates. The major religions could not stand for even considering alternatives or that the could be wrong. Folks would lose jobs! They will (and do) use the court system and lobbyists to try to make whatever religious tenant the law of the land. Even Baptist churches if you look into them, the ultimate goal is theocracy. They make sure their theories are taught in schools where they are the majority to keep the membership up ad tithes pumping.

But, if it mattered more behavior as opposed to merely believing in something, that in effect is Universalism and is (at least currently - historical Universalism meant all were saved and was a Christian denomination) maybe the world would be a better place.

But Yitzi, you do bring up a point. As long as belief matters more than outcomes or actions, the world is going to be a very hostile place in areas where theocratic leanings are dominate.

I see no alternative but to hinder the spread of religion and dismantle most of those institutions through education. Basically, the end of religion (notice I do not include principles or life philosophies) . Otherwise, we are going to destroy ourselves. In the end, we use the same weapons they use against us.

[Yitzi]

Universalism becomes unworkable only because it messes with the whole concept of "we are right".

I think the problem is that "universalism" has two meanings.

I was using it as "this applies to everybody", and when you combine that with "we are right" (which pretty much everyone holds) and "this is more important than personal liberty" tolerance becomes unworkable.

Why, it should not even be POSSIBLE to be moral without their belief system and structure Because it is RIGHT and the other choices are wrong (so you are told).

That doesn't follow, actually; someone can be mistaken and still be moral within the constraints of their mistake...

The major religions could not stand for even considering alternatives or that the could be wrong. Folks would lose jobs!

I don't think "losing jobs" is generally the primary motivation.

They will (and do) use the court system and lobbyists to try to make whatever religious tenant the law of the land.

It does depend on the situation; in particular, anywhere that a religious group is a minority, they're probably not going to try to push theocracy but rather a "live and let live" approach until the One True Religion is revealed for all to see.

But, if it mattered more behavior as opposed to merely believing in something, that in effect is Universalism and is (at least currently - historical Universalism meant all were saved and was a Christian denomination) maybe the world would be a better place.

Of course, you can believe that behavior matters more but your own position is still right, or even that behavior matters more but belief is still very important.

But Yitzi, you do bring up a point. As long as belief matters more than outcomes or actions, the world is going to be a very hostile place in areas where theocratic leanings are dominate.

An action-focused theocracy usually isn't going to be that comfortable a place for a nonbeliever either.

I see no alternative but to hinder the spread of religion and dismantle most of those institutions through education.

That basically comes down to doing to religion what you're worried about religion doing to others...sort of defeats the purpose, if your goal is for everyone to be able to follow their own beliefs.  Plus it could easily be counterproductive, by forcing various religious groups to unite against you...and if all the religious groups united, they would have the strength to push through theocracy which they haven't so far.

A more constructive approach, I think, is to turn the situation into a Mexican standoff, where each group is a minority and knows that a strong Freedom of Religion principle is the only think guaranteeing that they won't be persecuted.  That way, anyone trying to attack the situation is likely to get jumped on by all the others, and you get a "live and let live" situation.  Which sort of holds in America now, and is why those attempts at theocracy usually fail.

[JarlWolf]

Or do what the Soviets did. You phase it out by education, subtly dismantling it and having an overpowering ideal to replace it and give people hope.

Orthodox Christianity is not as big as it was a hundred years ago, and many people despise it- And many of the younger Russians do not like it all.

And Yitzi, religious groups even if faced with that threat will not unite enough to put aside their own differences. If anything if one group doesn't put its beliefs down another's throat, different one will in its place. I'd rather have my beliefs over anothers. Call it arrogant but its just how I see it..

For myself though, I don't believe in genocide or causing that much mayhem. If religion is going to die out, let it go naturally and let space colonization put doubt into it all. I mean no offence to any religious here, nor do I hate all religious as stated before, and I noticed a distinct lack of our other religious friends not posting in this topic (for obvious and probably logical reason) but know that its something I feel strongly about: and it isn't meant in harmful hatred. I honestly just see religion as an impediment, and at worst when taken by zealots, whether or not the religion proclaims tolerance, are dangerous men who need to be put down before they kill your friends and family. I've lost brothers in arms and seen innocent people die to the arrogance and "supreme will" of god's worshippers and I despise it.

Christianity proclaims tolerance but ultimately the organized body of it will ignore that simply because they are an organized body and a political institution: Which is truly sad because frankly, Christianity in terms of ideal is actually very egalitarian and very welcoming in ideal to people. Forgive thy neighbour, love them. Even though we don't see it in practice. Communism was stemmed from Hegelian Christian communes and its apparent because Communism is derived on the sharing of resource and necessary distribution of goods based on need.

And there is good people who follow these faiths- its just the faith itself is ruled by political bodies that care nothing about the welfare of people and even morals and more about culturally controlling people, expanding their influence, and getting money. Plain and simple.

[Green1]

Well put, Jarl.

Speaking of zealots, "god's will", and arrogance, the article I posted from Louisiana showed a picture. Now, I have not lost comrades or anything harsh like Jarlwolf. But, I am in fear in some situations in Louisiana if I am too open about non belief, I can face economic persecution and possible homelessness. In the city, less so. Rural areas in the Bible Belt more so.

THIS is what was in the article put in mail boxes to atheists gathering in the western part of my state, only a hour or so drive from here.

Oh, and Yitzi. Universalism as a philosophy is not about everything applying one dogma to everybody. No, it simply means that everyone has their own path to enlightenment. Nor was I wanting an action based theocracy. I am against any theocracy period. 
 

[JarlWolf]

That grammar alone is threatening enough 

Not impressed. So much love and tolerance in that letter...

[Yitzi]

Or do what the Soviets did. You phase it out by education, subtly dismantling it and having an overpowering ideal to replace it and give people hope.

Orthodox Christianity is not as big as it was a hundred years ago, and many people despise it- And many of the younger Russians do not like it all.

That's a lot harder if you're not willing to go all brutal dictatorship, though...

And Yitzi, religious groups even if faced with that threat will not unite enough to put aside their own differences.

I'm not so sure, at least when it comes to a place like America where the Mexican standoff idea is what's keeping the peace.

And there is good people who follow these faiths- its just the faith itself is ruled by political bodies that care nothing about the welfare of people and even morals and more about culturally controlling people, expanding their influence, and getting money. Plain and simple.

Which suggests that the best solution might be to encourage an internal revolution against said political bodies...

Well put, Jarl.

Speaking of zealots, "god's will", and arrogance, the article I posted from Louisiana showed a picture. Now, I have not lost comrades or anything harsh like Jarlwolf. But, I am in fear in some situations in Louisiana if I am too open about non belief, I can face economic persecution and possible homelessness. In the city, less so. Rural areas in the Bible Belt more so.

THIS is what was in the article put in mail boxes to atheists gathering in the western part of my state, only a hour or so drive from here.

I think that when you have to say "don't report this to the police", you should think really hard about whether you're really on the side of good.

Oh, and Yitzi. Universalism as a philosophy is not about everything applying one dogma to everybody.

IIRC, I've seen it used both ways, but that's a semantic discussion anyway.

No, it simply means that everyone has their own path to enlightenment.

Wait, wouldn't that make it relevant only to enlightenment-based systems, and completely irrelevant to service-based systems (whether theistic service-based systems such as Abrahamic religion, or humanistic service-based systems such as many secular approaches to morality)?

[Green1]

Wait, wouldn't that make it relevant only to enlightenment-based systems, and completely irrelevant to service-based systems (whether theistic service-based systems such as Abrahamic religion, or humanistic service-based systems such as many secular approaches to morality)?

Maybe that was the wrong wording. Better wording would be "a free and responsible search for meaning/truth" that could apply to many religions. But some like the more hardline Abrahamic would need to cull some of the condemning things out of their teachings because some of the passages outright condemn, justify violence, or wish supernatural torture to opposing viewpoints which are harmless otherwise. Specifically Old testament and much of the Koran.  However, there are limits to this. You must agree to basic principles. Simple stuff like recognizing every human has worth, not trashing the environment, etc.

Unlike Jarlwolf, I do still think churches have a place. But, as a social gathering and networking place where at least everyone agrees not to be a [feminine washing] to each other and be decent human beings. Even with UU (which has NO dogma), I say rip up the pews and put couches in a circle. No singing unless you want to be in a choir. No sermons. Ministers are still needed, but only to facilitate the conversations and organize events to help you meet folks, brew the coffee, visit you in the hospital or lend an ear, and keep the place open. But too many churches ignore and even say if you go there for that, "it is the wrong reason". No, you are there to get the dogma and nothing else, they say. Sad, too. If they want converts they need to lay off the dogma, loosen up, and let the people mingle. Not pour over some ancient book of questionable authorship, contradictory passages, and historical inaccuracies!! Nor should they be going around saying they have the way and only "they" can get you there! All the folks need is a place to meet people where the folks are not jerks that is not work or some pub.

[Buster's Uncle]

I very much enjoy diversity of views interacting.

Just sayin'.