Christian right disrupts first Hindu prayer in the Senate.

Why is there any offical prayer before a meeting of Congress? Especially a pagan one.

My thought is that this will (inaccurately) be labelled as the actions of a few kooky Christian right extremists, and the deeper problem of inherent intolerance of the prevaling monotheisms of the day will continue to be ignored.

A good question. One that I have never heard satisfactorily answered. Also, why is "under God" still in the pledge of allegiance and on our money?

What a bunch of assholes.

There many unconstitutional traditions (beyond chruch and state) that haven't been abolished based solely on tradition and legal fiction. Which is lazy. The GAO is a prime example.

The religious ones obviously are troublesome and easily curable, by just removing from the money or the Pledge. On the other hand, I imagine a defender would point to writings of the Founding Fathers, especially Franklin who held that religion was a necessary pillar to the new American society.

The best explanation was from The West Wing when Charlie asks Bartlett how the Red Mass does run afoul of the Establishment Clause to which Bartlett basically replies "it does, but its tradition and everyone looks the other way."

Thomas Jefferson:
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

Benjamin Franklin:
"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."

James Madison:
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

John Adams
"Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years?"

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

Thomas Paine:
"What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith."

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half of the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."


I tend to look extra hard at activities we engage in for the sake of tradition. Usually, they're a waste of time or plain ol' wrong.

Yeah, but what did any of those guys ever do for Freedom and Democracy? Wait until Brit Hume finds out about this! Those guys' reputations will be screwed!

Good point. I should have said spirituality, morality and loose faith in a higher power, which despite Franklin's quote below, was advocated by Founding Fathers like an American religion.

Thomas Paine, of course, burns in hell for his blasphemy.

Once, this Catholic philosophy major defended his bashing of Wicca to me by saying, "You can't be intolerant of intolerance".

It is, obviously these Senators have never heard the word ecumenism, and why do I have to be labeled in the same group as them when they are in the global minority?

For the millionth time, if this "silent majority" of good, tolerant right-wing Christians wants to stop being labeled with this "crazy minority", then fucking man up and stop letting them call all the fucking shots for once. Until then, you can all get fucked.

I like how I completely agree with you Brad, almost to the point where you tell me to get fucked. That I can't do. I recently injured my pimp hand. Anyway you're post is the equivalent of saying that all muslims should be lumped in with Islamic terrorists until they "fucking man up."

I like how I completely agree with you Brad, almost to the point where you tell me to get fucked. That I can't do. I recently injured my pimp hand. Anyway you're post is the equivalent of saying that all muslims should be lumped in with Islamic terrorists until they "fucking man up."

Sure. Except I consider Christian theocrats to be far more damaging to this country than terrorism.

Sure. Except I consider Christian theocrats to be far more damaging to this country than terrorism.

Words right out of my mouth.

Words right out of my mouth.

Nice to see posters on CHUD channeling Glenn Beck.

Nice to see posters on CHUD channeling Glenn Beck.

...

...

How, exactly? Real question: the mechanics of standing up to extremism are (it seems to me, at least) more complicated than that. Extremism is what plays. It's what gets you interviews on CNN (or al-Jazeera). Polarizing a minority is more effective than appealing to an entrenched majority.

There is a 'crazy minority' of Christians. Granted, that minority numbers in the millions, but contrasted against the overall population, it's smaller than it would appear in the MSM. The (Christian Right) base goes to Vote, therefore the base wields an inordinate amount of power. Just like the Clinton/Kerry camp wields inordinate power in the Democratic field (whatever happened to Labor?).

It's unfair to paint an entire segment on the basis of its more vocal extremity. I react when this is done to Islam, I react when it's done to Christianity.

That being said: I don't think the problem here is with the 'silent majority.' It's with the minority that controls the media. As an aside: Putin reflects criticism that Russia's mainstream press is co-opted by a political elite by suggesting the same thing happens in America, but we do a better job of disguising it.

I think he might be right.

How, exactly? Real question: the mechanics of standing up to extremism are (it seems to me, at least) more complicated than that. Extremism is what plays. It's what gets you interviews on CNN (or al-Jazeera). Polarizing a minority is more effective than appealing to an entrenched majority.

There is a 'crazy minority' of Christians. Granted, that minority numbers in the millions, but contrasted against the overall population, it's smaller than it would appear in the MSM. The (Christian Right) base goes to Vote, therefore the base wields an inordinate amount of power. Just like the Clinton/Kerry camp wields inordinate power in the Democratic field (whatever happened to Labor?).

It's unfair to paint an entire segment on the basis of its more vocal extremity. I react when this is done to Islam, I react when it's done to Christianity.

That being said: I don't think the problem here is with the 'silent majority.' It's with the minority that controls the media. As an aside: Putin reflects criticism that Russia's mainstream press is co-opted by a political elite by suggesting the same thing happens in America, but we do a better job of disguising it.

I think he might be right.

Nice to see you're still an apologist for bigotry and hatred.

Nice to see you're still an apologist for bigotry and hatred.

I think the point being made is that in both cases (Islamic and Christian), the "crazy" extremists make headlines, push agendas, and disrupt society. Also in both cases, the so called "silent majorities" make little if no effort in refuting the stances the extremists take. To not take an aggressive stance to distance yourself from those purporting to be speaking on behalf of the entire organization (Al-Queda says they speak for Islam, not "fundamentalist Islam", Fred Phelps says he speaks on behalf of Christians, not "Crazy redneck inbred bible thumpers") and then calling foul when you get lumped in with this vocal minority is patently absurd. If members of either organization wish to truly separate themselves, then they need to stand up and fully ostracize the radical movements within their organizations.

I think the point being made is that in both cases (Islamic and Christian), the "crazy" extremists make headlines, push agendas, and disrupt society. Also in both cases, the so called "silent majorities" make little if no effort in refuting the stances the extremists take. To not take an aggressive stance to distance yourself from those purporting to be speaking on behalf of the entire organization (Al-Queda says they speak for Islam, not "fundamentalist Islam", Fred Phelps says he speaks on behalf of Christians, not "Crazy redneck inbred bible thumpers") and then calling foul when you get lumped in with this vocal minority is patently absurd. If members of either organization wish to truly separate themselves, then they need to stand up and fully ostracize the radical movements within their organizations.

Again, how is this effort supposed to look? There's a silent majority of Americans who disapprove of George Bush and his Presidency, but no mechanism exists to effectively register that outside of random sample polling (and participating in the Primaries, which doesn't really count as a refutation). Does that make us complicit in George Bush's particular brand of ideological patriotism?

To a degree, yes. But outside of out and out revolution, there's often very little that can be done, or registered, or said. The best effort decent, hardworking Christians and Muslims can give is given: they give it everyday in going about their work and life in quiet faith and concern. Should they give up their jobs to protest the abuses made by the fringe elements? Maybe, but then who would support their children? This is like asking every Patriotic American who disagrees with Bush to descend upon the National Mall and camp out until he leaves Office. As much as I would love to see that, its unrealistic. People's lives must come first.

The idea that no effort is made to refute extremism seems wrong. In America, Mosques and Churches do quality works with real dollars. Every dollars directed to a forward thinking project, whether it be housing for the poor or counseling for troubled teens, is a direct refutation of extremist ideologies. Just because it isn't loud, it isn't covered, or it isn't easily identifiable doesn't mean it doesn't count.

We can all agree that more could, and should, be done. But unless we, individually, are willing to make that happen there is little room for complaint. It's a lot easier to tell other people what they should be doing.

Again, how is this effort supposed to look? There's a silent majority of Americans who disapprove of George Bush and his Presidency, but no mechanism exists to effectively register that outside of random sample polling (and participating in the Primaries, which doesn't really count as a refutation). Does that make us complicit in George Bush's particular brand of ideological patriotism?

To a degree, yes. But outside of out and out revolution, there's often very little that can be done, or registered, or said. The best effort decent, hardworking Christians and Muslims can give is given: they give it everyday in going about their work and life in quiet faith and concern. Should they give up their jobs to protest the abuses made by the fringe elements? Maybe, but then who would support their children? This is like asking every Patriotic American who disagrees with Bush to descend upon the National Mall and camp out until he leaves Office. As much as I would love to see that, its unrealistic. People's lives must come first.

The idea that no effort is made to refute extremism seems wrong. In America, Mosques and Churches do quality works with real dollars. Every dollars directed to a forward thinking project, whether it be housing for the poor or counseling for troubled teens, is a direct refutation of extremist ideologies. Just because it isn't loud, it isn't covered, or it isn't easily identifiable doesn't mean it doesn't count.

We can all agree that more could, and should, be done. But unless we, individually, are willing to make that happen there is little room for complaint. It's a lot easier to tell other people what they should be doing.

Here's a thought: I'm a non-believer, and I'm fucking exhausted from trying to distance moderate Christians from "redneck, inbred Bible thumpers." On top of that, I'm an above-average arguer, and most folks seem to think I tend to make pretty good points.

Now, if I, an educated, fairly articulate agnostic, can recognize that this battle is fruitless, because the Phelpses of the world don't care and the Richard Dawkinses of the world refuse to acknowledge the important distinction between moderates and extremists, I can only imagine how most moderate Christians (especially those less prone to argument than me) feel. It's a conversation that yields no results, because those who expect moderate Christians to slam the extremists will remain dogmatically opposed to religion for their own reasons, and extremists will simply call the moderates "bad" Christians. So I ask you this: exactly for whose benefit should these moderates be speaking out?

Here's a thought: I'm a non-believer, and I'm fucking exhausted from trying to distance moderate Christians from "redneck, inbred Bible thumpers." On top of that, I'm an above-average arguer, and most folks seem to think I tend to make pretty good points.

Now, if I, an educated, fairly articulate agnostic, can recognize that this battle is fruitless, because the Phelpses of the world don't care and the Richard Dawkinses of the world refuse to acknowledge the important distinction between moderates and extremists, I can only imagine how most moderate Christians (especially those less prone to argument than me) feel. It's a conversation that yields no results, because those who expect moderate Christians to slam the extremists will remain dogmatically opposed to religion for their own reasons, and extremists will simply call the moderates "bad" Christians. So I ask you this: exactly for whose benefit should these moderates be speaking out?

Allright then, could they stop pissing and fucking moaning about what martyrs they are, at least?

Allright then, could they stop pissing and fucking moaning about what martyrs they are, at least?

Their own? I mean, that's the whole point of this country--something's pissing you off enough, stand up and speak out. Fight back. There's too much extremeism on both sides taking up all the air time in the news, it'd be nice to see a level-headed majority inject some reality into the situation.

Their own? I mean, that's the whole point of this country--something's pissing you off enough, stand up and speak out. Fight back. There's too much extremeism on both sides taking up all the air time in the news, it'd be nice to see a level-headed majority inject some reality into the situation.

They should speak out for their own benefit. All it takes for Evil to Succeed is for Good Men to do nothing.

Im not entirely sure what you are referring to Brad, but I'll take a shot at it anyway. Martyrdom (beyond being a central tenet of Christianity) exists as a form of political expression. Yes, I agree, it's a dangerous and disgusting form of expression, but we aren't in a disenfranchised position. The analog is our notion of Patriotism: there is no shame in dying for your country. It is usually encouraged, or at least exalted. Substitute Religion for Country.

I don't say this to excuse it. I'm merely pointing out that Nationalism and Fundamentalism are equally dangerous.

They should speak out for their own benefit. All it takes for Evil to Succeed is for Good Men to do nothing.

Im not entirely sure what you are referring to Brad, but I'll take a shot at it anyway. Martyrdom (beyond being a central tenet of Christianity) exists as a form of political expression. Yes, I agree, it's a dangerous and disgusting form of expression, but we aren't in a disenfranchised position. The analog is our notion of Patriotism: there is no shame in dying for your country. It is usually encouraged, or at least exalted. Substitute Religion for Country.

I don't say this to excuse it. I'm merely pointing out that Nationalism and Fundamentalism are equally dangerous.

It happens all the time. It just doesn't sell newspapers. Or whatever it is that the crazy kids read these days. When Christian groups do something right, it just doesn't illicit much discussion, e.g. http://chud.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88943

Who is doing that? I don't think most moderate or liberal Christians think they're being persecuted or martyred. They just don't want to be lumped in with the crazies, and say that when it occurs.

It happens all the time. It just doesn't sell newspapers. Or whatever it is that the crazy kids read these days. When Christian groups do something right, it just doesn't illicit much discussion, e.g. http://chud.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88943

Who is doing that? I don't think most moderate or liberal Christians think they're being persecuted or martyred. They just don't want to be lumped in with the crazies, and say that when it occurs.

Allright then, could the fundamentalist apologists on this board fucking shut up once in a while?

If I have to narrow this down to ElCapitanAmerica's spleen, so help me God I will.

Allright then, could the fundamentalist apologists on this board fucking shut up once in a while?

If I have to narrow this down to ElCapitanAmerica's spleen, so help me God I will.

I'm sorry, Brad, but I have to take issue with you again. Fundamentalism is secreted by the pancreas, not the spleen. But I guess a Jesus Hater wouldn't know that.

I'm sorry, Brad, but I have to take issue with you again. Fundamentalism is secreted by the pancreas, not the spleen. But I guess a Jesus Hater wouldn't know that.

Individually, no, but as a country, yes. No one I believe is surprised that other countries, especially those in the Middle East, routinely call out their hatred of Americans. And we don't get to cry foul that we are being grouped together, because everyone has to accept some degree of responsibility for their countries actions. And people did voice their opinion on the presidency. The major ousting of Republicans last election was a rather vocal condemnation of the current regimes policies and was recognized by other countries.

No one is refuting that there's some charitable work done by religious organizations, but I don't see too many large scale splinter sects being formed (ala Lutherans against the Catholic church) that make their major tenants refuting the discrimination against homosexuals or the acceptance of scientific fact over the absurd pseudo-science of "Intelligent Design" either. I also don't see Islamic organization taking a hard line stance against suicide bombing, preaching routinely that that extremist measures is unacceptable in a civilized world and those sponsering it should be shunned both financially and politically either.

What I do see is that if you randomly poll people who define themselves as Christians and ask them what their stance is on gay marriage, it's overwhelmingly negative. A similar poll to Islamics, and you'll also find an overwhelming support for suicide bombing as an acceptable practice for "freedom fighters". Both of those positions give rise to the thought that the so called "Silent Majority" despite some form of vocal protestations have to the face reality that they really are not the majority on the most controversial issues within their respective organizations.

Individually, no, but as a country, yes. No one I believe is surprised that other countries, especially those in the Middle East, routinely call out their hatred of Americans. And we don't get to cry foul that we are being grouped together, because everyone has to accept some degree of responsibility for their countries actions. And people did voice their opinion on the presidency. The major ousting of Republicans last election was a rather vocal condemnation of the current regimes policies and was recognized by other countries.

No one is refuting that there's some charitable work done by religious organizations, but I don't see too many large scale splinter sects being formed (ala Lutherans against the Catholic church) that make their major tenants refuting the discrimination against homosexuals or the acceptance of scientific fact over the absurd pseudo-science of "Intelligent Design" either. I also don't see Islamic organization taking a hard line stance against suicide bombing, preaching routinely that that extremist measures is unacceptable in a civilized world and those sponsering it should be shunned both financially and politically either.

What I do see is that if you randomly poll people who define themselves as Christians and ask them what their stance is on gay marriage, it's overwhelmingly negative. A similar poll to Islamics, and you'll also find an overwhelming support for suicide bombing as an acceptable practice for "freedom fighters". Both of those positions give rise to the thought that the so called "Silent Majority" despite some form of vocal protestations have to the face reality that they really are not the majority on the most controversial issues within their respective organizations.

His Appendix was removed for your sins.

His Appendix was removed for your sins.

The thing is that these people do "speak out," in a sense. They work at Planned Parenthoods, they oppose people like Phelps in print, they work for gay-oriented charitable organizations (and many are gay, themelves*). Considering the relatively small number of self-defined atheists in this country, it's not like that segment of the population is single-handedly holding up all progressive movements in the U.S.

The default here is Christian, and the default for any religion is middle-of-the-road. Extremists will always get the press, and moderates will make their views known simply by constituting the majority.

* Another thing to consider - if you're a gay Christian (and, again, based on the relative rarity of self-defined atheists here, I'd assume that Christian homosexuals in this country still outnumber atheist homosexuals), why the heck should you be expected to challenge Phelps on his stance on homosexuality? By being out as both a Christian and a homosexual, you're essentially making an anti-Phelps statement every day just by living.

The thing is that these people do "speak out," in a sense. They work at Planned Parenthoods, they oppose people like Phelps in print, they work for gay-oriented charitable organizations (and many are gay, themelves*). Considering the relatively small number of self-defined atheists in this country, it's not like that segment of the population is single-handedly holding up all progressive movements in the U.S.

The default here is Christian, and the default for any religion is middle-of-the-road. Extremists will always get the press, and moderates will make their views known simply by constituting the majority.

* Another thing to consider - if you're a gay Christian (and, again, based on the relative rarity of self-defined atheists here, I'd assume that Christian homosexuals in this country still outnumber atheist homosexuals), why the heck should you be expected to challenge Phelps on his stance on homosexuality? By being out as both a Christian and a homosexual, you're essentially making an anti-Phelps statement every day just by living.