Comments on: Who Represents the Religious? http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/05/30/who-represents-the-religious/ by Hemant Mehta Sat, 26 May 2012 13:11:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Independent http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/05/30/who-represents-the-religious/#comment-164730 Independent Thu, 15 May 2008 01:37:53 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/30/who-represents-the-religious/#comment-164730 I view leftists as being more stupid than religious people, and it is a religion in itself. I find more evidence creationism (0.00001%) than I do that men and women are basically the same (0%). Or that poverty causes crime/terrorism. Or that taxes help the poor, etc. Leftism is a religion and religious people are stupid. I view leftists as being more stupid than religious people, and it is a religion in itself. I find more evidence creationism (0.00001%) than I do that men and women are basically the same (0%). Or that poverty causes crime/terrorism. Or that taxes help the poor, etc.

Leftism is a religion and religious people are stupid.

]]> By: Maria http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/05/30/who-represents-the-religious/#comment-36126 Maria Fri, 01 Jun 2007 01:52:11 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/30/who-represents-the-religious/#comment-36126 That’s why I hate the implicit assumption that atheists must be left wing or in the US, democrats. I mean I’m no republican (gj neocons) but I’m even less a democrat <em>I agree. I think the media stereotypes atheists as well.</em> That’s why I hate the implicit assumption that atheists must be left wing or in the US, democrats. I mean I’m no republican (gj neocons) but I’m even less a democrat

I agree. I think the media stereotypes atheists as well.

]]> By: Maria http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/05/30/who-represents-the-religious/#comment-36115 Maria Fri, 01 Jun 2007 01:50:54 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/30/who-represents-the-religious/#comment-36115 Hermant you totally rule! Thank you SO much for posting this. This is sooo true. Many of us liberal religious are shaking our heads at the represenation in the media. I actually agreed with a lot of what atheists had to say about Falwell. I also cringed whenever I heard someone imply that everyone who is a believer must think like Falwell! Many progressive religious groups also spoke out against Falwell, but you didn't hear about that very often. I hope the trend changes, b/c I think progressive people of all types can work well together and can respect each other's rights. And like you, I've never met a Catholic who agrees with Donahue either. He's an embarassment to most of them! Hermant you totally rule! Thank you SO much for posting this. This is sooo true. Many of us liberal religious are shaking our heads at the represenation in the media. I actually agreed with a lot of what atheists had to say about Falwell. I also cringed whenever I heard someone imply that everyone who is a believer must think like Falwell! Many progressive religious groups also spoke out against Falwell, but you didn’t hear about that very often. I hope the trend changes, b/c I think progressive people of all types can work well together and can respect each other’s rights. And like you, I’ve never met a Catholic who agrees with Donahue either. He’s an embarassment to most of them!

]]> By: Mike C http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/05/30/who-represents-the-religious/#comment-35928 Mike C Thu, 31 May 2007 16:06:57 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/30/who-represents-the-religious/#comment-35928 <blockquote>From my California perspective, the majority consists of neither religious left nor religious right. The majority is apathetic.</blockquote> I think that's true pretty much anywhere these days.

From my California perspective, the majority consists of neither religious left nor religious right. The majority is apathetic.

I think that’s true pretty much anywhere these days.

]]> By: Tina B. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/05/30/who-represents-the-religious/#comment-35880 Tina B. Thu, 31 May 2007 12:38:44 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/30/who-represents-the-religious/#comment-35880 Thankfully we have the internet and don't have to believe everything on television and in the newspaper. I know we can't believe everything on the internet either but at least we have the means to question what is being shown or said. Thankfully we have the internet and don’t have to believe everything on television and in the newspaper. I know we can’t believe everything on the internet either but at least we have the means to question what is being shown or said.

]]> By: writerdd http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/05/30/who-represents-the-religious/#comment-35871 writerdd Thu, 31 May 2007 12:20:37 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/30/who-represents-the-religious/#comment-35871 <blockquote>But if 46% of the public thinks the earth is less than 10k years old, do we really think there are more progressives than conservatives</blockquote> Belief in stupid doctrines like creationism has nothing whatsoever to do with political viewpoints. You can believe the earth is six thousand years old and still be a democrat. I don't really know if there are more religious moderates and progressives than there are conservatives in the US, but I personally know many Christians who are liberal politically and I have known many fundamentalists who were democrats (as one commenter said, not in the South). I've actually been thinking about this a lot lately and, while I have a problem with people believing things that are not based on evidence because it leads to irrational decision making and is bad for both individuals and for society, I really only have a BIG problem with the religious right. In other words, I don't hate Christians, but I do hate neo-cons. If I find out that someone I know still supports Bush, for example, I can hardly force myself to speak to that person any more. Once, after knowing someone from the South and being good friends with them for years, I stopped speaking to this friend after she said "I can't believe she kissed a nigger. How disgusting." As soon as I realized that the person I thought was my friend was a racist, I couldn't be around her any more. That's how I feel about the religious right.

But if 46% of the public thinks the earth is less than 10k years old, do we really think there are more progressives than conservatives

Belief in stupid doctrines like creationism has nothing whatsoever to do with political viewpoints. You can believe the earth is six thousand years old and still be a democrat.

I don’t really know if there are more religious moderates and progressives than there are conservatives in the US, but I personally know many Christians who are liberal politically and I have known many fundamentalists who were democrats (as one commenter said, not in the South).

I’ve actually been thinking about this a lot lately and, while I have a problem with people believing things that are not based on evidence because it leads to irrational decision making and is bad for both individuals and for society, I really only have a BIG problem with the religious right.

In other words, I don’t hate Christians, but I do hate neo-cons. If I find out that someone I know still supports Bush, for example, I can hardly force myself to speak to that person any more. Once, after knowing someone from the South and being good friends with them for years, I stopped speaking to this friend after she said “I can’t believe she kissed a nigger. How disgusting.” As soon as I realized that the person I thought was my friend was a racist, I couldn’t be around her any more. That’s how I feel about the religious right.

]]> By: olvlzl, no ism, no ist http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/05/30/who-represents-the-religious/#comment-35867 olvlzl, no ism, no ist Thu, 31 May 2007 12:12:01 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/30/who-represents-the-religious/#comment-35867 The reason the media do this isn't a matter or religion, not even indirectly. They couldn't care less about religion except as a tool to put Republicans in control. They define religion as being "Republican" and that allows them to paint Democrats as "anti-religion" if not "godless". This, like all of their methods of control, doesn't have to work with everyone or even most people, it just has to sucker in an effective margin of victory. Their margin of victory depends on ignorant people who are easy to control. This is all the more reason that the tone deaf PR of the secular left is particularly galling to me. It's not particularly difficult to understand but you do have to get off the high horse to see it. It's mostly a matter of snobs at the top refusing to respect people they consider inferior. The reason the media do this isn’t a matter or religion, not even indirectly. They couldn’t care less about religion except as a tool to put Republicans in control. They define religion as being “Republican” and that allows them to paint Democrats as “anti-religion” if not “godless”. This, like all of their methods of control, doesn’t have to work with everyone or even most people, it just has to sucker in an effective margin of victory. Their margin of victory depends on ignorant people who are easy to control. This is all the more reason that the tone deaf PR of the secular left is particularly galling to me. It’s not particularly difficult to understand but you do have to get off the high horse to see it. It’s mostly a matter of snobs at the top refusing to respect people they consider inferior.

]]> By: miller http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/05/30/who-represents-the-religious/#comment-35814 miller Thu, 31 May 2007 08:42:20 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/30/who-represents-the-religious/#comment-35814 Quote Mike C <blockquote>The media goes for the Falwell or Robertson or Dobson soundbite because it is shocking and extremist and will drive up ratings.</blockquote> I think this is exactly right about why the religious right is given so much attention. But this only works because they are so extreme relative to the mainstream. The media mostly talks about them from more liberal points of view. Just because they are given attention doesn't mean it's all positive attention. From my California perspective, the majority consists of neither religious left nor religious right. The majority is apathetic. Quote Mike C

The media goes for the Falwell or Robertson or Dobson soundbite because it is shocking and extremist and will drive up ratings.

I think this is exactly right about why the religious right is given so much attention. But this only works because they are so extreme relative to the mainstream. The media mostly talks about them from more liberal points of view. Just because they are given attention doesn’t mean it’s all positive attention.

From my California perspective, the majority consists of neither religious left nor religious right. The majority is apathetic.

]]> By: Looney http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/05/30/who-represents-the-religious/#comment-35742 Looney Thu, 31 May 2007 05:30:15 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/30/who-represents-the-religious/#comment-35742 Liberal Christian groups are for the most part on the decline. Can't be sure, but I think they peaked more than half a century ago. It is hard to keep passionate followers when the leader isn't sure either. They are halfway between the 19th century skeptics and new age sorts. Don't look down on them. Progressive theologians outnumber atheists and scientists. Without them, the theory of evolution is headed for extinction. Liberal Christian groups are for the most part on the decline. Can’t be sure, but I think they peaked more than half a century ago. It is hard to keep passionate followers when the leader isn’t sure either. They are halfway between the 19th century skeptics and new age sorts.

Don’t look down on them. Progressive theologians outnumber atheists and scientists. Without them, the theory of evolution is headed for extinction.

]]> By: Miko http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/05/30/who-represents-the-religious/#comment-35718 Miko Thu, 31 May 2007 05:04:09 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/05/30/who-represents-the-religious/#comment-35718 <blockquote>Sure, there just might be as many or more religious liberals (however we define that) as conservatives, but almost by definition the conservatives are bound to be more outspoken, and more virulent in their expression of their beliefs.</blockquote> I don't think it's by definition so much as by complexity. For example, Mike C's been arguing against some of the interpretations of certain bits of the Bible and citing articles that bring up subtle nuances of language usage, word choice, translation bias, etc. That kind of argument takes a long time. The conservatives on the other hand just need to quote a Bible verse and assert that it means that their god wants us to do this or that stupid thing. News sources prefer the soundbite because they don't expect people to listen any longer than that.

Sure, there just might be as many or more religious liberals (however we define that) as conservatives, but almost by definition the conservatives are bound to be more outspoken, and more virulent in their expression of their beliefs.

I don’t think it’s by definition so much as by complexity. For example, Mike C’s been arguing against some of the interpretations of certain bits of the Bible and citing articles that bring up subtle nuances of language usage, word choice, translation bias, etc. That kind of argument takes a long time. The conservatives on the other hand just need to quote a Bible verse and assert that it means that their god wants us to do this or that stupid thing. News sources prefer the soundbite because they don’t expect people to listen any longer than that.

]]>