You first paragraph could fit easily on RedState...

The last paragraph is Elvi-fascism : an extremist call to impose your own personal religious beliefs on a world that doesn't share them. Extremists love hype.

But I still love you, man....peace out!

Very well said.

I think focusing on the "enabler" aspect is spot on.

Christianity was deffinantly hijacked by the right for political purposes. However, until it is taken back there isn't a whole lot you can say it its defense. Especially while it is acting as an enabler.

The seperation of church and state is the medium in which "real christians" could take back their religion. They have to start focusing on that though instead of abusing it. I think if they don't focus on it, they will marginalize themselves even further.

Also - read Eric Hoffer et al. Extremism IS the disease. Extremists often float from one belief system to another; Born Again to Anarchist to Whatever. The 'what' of the extremism isn't really all that relevant.

You first paragraph could fit easily on RedState...

Yeah. Except there they use it as justification for barbarism, Lee. Here I'm using it as an argument against it.

The last paragraph is Elvi-fascism : an extremist call to impose your own personal religious beliefs on a world that doesn't share them. Extremists love hype.

Now who's making with the RedStatism? Asking that churches, mosques and synagogues -- and not the political town square -- be the stages upon which matters of eternal salvation and damnation be decided is precisely the opposite of imposing my own personal religious beliefs on anyone. My "hype" is so scary extreme that it calls for divesting the government of Medieval thinkery and a return to the Enlightment's common sense; their hype comes with loaded .38s and burning crosses.

So you're saying a lack of a belief system, a lack of religion, will lead to anarchy? Born Again to Anarchist?

Maybe in the absence of education and good morale foundations. Im pretty sure we can all focus on those two things. A belief system is not a requirement for good morale foundations. Only being human is.

I'll go read the Et Als but I'll be hard-pressed to give up the notion that ignorance, paired with intolerance, is the disease, Religion an agent of metastasis and extremism one of its many symptoms.

What's the common link between Jihists and Stalists or Nazis?

Enlightened thinking isn't per se atheistic or even opposed to religion. The Founding Fathers weren't atheists...or fundamentalists. They were deists Christians, mostly. Both extremes of religious viewpoints want to claim them but it doesn't fit the facts.

Insulting all theological thinking as 'medieval' shows a profound lack of knowledge of post-Augustian thought and thinkers. These are complex issues and they are treated as such by modern thinkers.

Lee, you can't be serious. Elvis is imposing his religious beliefs..? What religious beliefs?

While the fundies are busy screaming that we liberals want to remove "In God We Trust" from our currency, religious nuts have managed to take the "Goddamn" out of our "Goddamn Awesome Blog." (And, yeah, I know, religion had nothing to do with it)

A Disclaimer:

As a Baha'i, I believe in Moses, and Jesus, and Buddha, and Muhammad, and Baha'u'llah, and Krishna, and all the prophets who predate Baha'u'llah. And as such, I do feel compelled to repudiate insults hurled unjustly at the prophets.

At the same time, as a Baha'i, I feel compelled to look for unity where it can be had... and fortunately, it can be had:

Elvis writes:

If some of us tend to paint Christians with so broad a brush in times like these it’s because we can no longer stomach the end-result of God’s endless tinkering in politics. If HuffPo’s Christina Page has her research correct, there’s a direct correlation between an ascendant Democratic administration in Washington and anti-abortion violence nationwide; Dr. Tiller’s murder was as much political as ideological, and Roeder wants Jesus on his ticket. If I simply blame the lone “extremist” I ignore the Biblical context of his fanaticism, which conveniently robs me of the argument that such a text has no place in 21st Century Politics. Random acts of mass slaughter fuel debates on the 2nd Amendment; anti-abortion terrorism should absolutely fuel debates on the Separation of Church and State, with an emphasis on Jesus’s inexplicable membership in the Republican Party.

I'm reasonably certain that God isn't tinkering in any politics. I'm just as positive that Jesus isn't a member of any political parties. And I'm 100% certain that Muhammad didn't sanction the schism of Islam into Sunni and Shi'a and consequently, isn't on either of their sides. The separation of church and state is something we can absolutely agree upon, and we can absolutely point to incidents like this (or Rumsfeld's holy war pics) to demonstrate the ill-effects of not being vigorous in defense of the principle. People carry their conscience with them, and will act upon their conscience... but in the sphere of political discourse, religion ought be excluded, and conversely, in the sphere of religious discourse, politics ought to be excluded. Such ws relaxed (for Christians) under President Bus, but we can agree that that standard needs to be shored up, not torn down.

QT

Grrr. I don't know what I did wrong there... but anyway, Elvis only said the first paragraph of that indented stuff.

QT

Jesus has no business whatsoever in our legal system Lee.

We share the same legal system. I do not share Christian beliefs and I will not allow anyone to inflict their faith on me or anyone else who is not interested in their faith by polluting our legal system with faith based dogma. Keep your religion to yourself.

The more that extremists try to ram their medieval superstitions down my throat even after I've told them I'm not interested, the more I want to have tax exemption for religions done away with. I am tired of subsidizing busybodies who think they should legislate their faith on everyone.

People of faith need to keep their faith to themselves and as far away from the legal system as possible. That's what the separation of church and state is all about. The founding fathers were correct, the contemporary Talibangelical Christofascists are attempting to rewrite history and the Constitution to make this country into a Christian Fundamentalist Republic. I do not plan to allow them to steal my country. I prefer it the way it is.

@JM: "The seperation of church and state is the medium in which "real christians" could take back their religion. They have to start focusing on that though instead of abusing it. I think if they don't focus on it, they will marginalize themselves even further."

So true. However, the problem with that is, if you believe in a separation of church and state (as I do) and you're a Christian (as I am...well, Catholic), then I think you tend to be much more private with your religion. Which leaves the soapboxes to those who are crazy. It's a difficult line b/w "I'm going to talk about my religion a lot in public" and "I don't care particularly about you and your religion as long as you don't care about mine." I've yet to figure out how to negotiate it.

The problem is the extremists also happen to be the loudest. They are the ones who scream, yell, call for action. And whatever sets them off, you cannot blame that. Because what sets them off is often the target for whatever twisted reason.

You can blame the ones pushing them, using them, manipulating them for an agenda. I don't blame the ones used as symbols really. I blame the people acting and the people getting them to act. The fact we have a group of media personalities whipping them up for profit is disgusting really. Those people should be held accountable for inciting this stuff. It may be a fine line but there has to be some repercussion for basically calling for the murder of someone.

I don't blame the core of the religion, I blame the people twisting it. It's the same no matter what religion, or ideology, is being used.

Just to point it out: the Bible called me a "fool" before I ever called anyone who believed anything in the Bible an "idiot". So, I didn't start it.

hahaha! kyle did you really just say "the bible started it" hahahaha!

ELVIS! Where the fuck were you when we were whipping on Stranahan over the tracks in a dark alley?

Jumped up jesus on skis!...could have used that post in the other thread.

Well said, Dingledein

The fact is that religion has it's place, and that place is not within 100 miles of the political domain. Religions and their doctrine are open to interpretation by nature, and when someone's interpretation is that they need to kill someone because they believe it is the right thing to do, then we have a problem. And it's a bigger problem when you have groups of these people forcing their will upon society. The Founders separated church and state so that we wouldn't have people subjecting society to their personal interpretation of some book written by a lot of old guys that some other people may happen to not believe in.

My point is simply this: Blaming Extremists without reconciling the pressures that created them is ridiculous, and counterproductive. Anti-abortion terrorists are the product of deep Fundamental indoctrination and self-serving intolerance. And they wouldn’t be driven to extremes if they didn’t equate political helplessness with theistic violence. Ms. Page lays it out in her article: Put a Pro-Life duncehat in the White House and this bullshit all but evaporates. The key isn’t the Extremist but detaching his will from politics.

If extremism itself is the Disease, what is the cure? I’ve read reports that Extremist Rehabilitation is actually possible, given the right set of circumstances, but no one in their right mind would suggest a one-by-one round-up of existing Extremists for reprogramming-and-release. How does one fight extremism at its roots if it is, itself, the disease?

Can you honestly tell me that removing any given student from a radical Islamic madrassa before the age of reason and giving him a secular education and the economic benefits to see that education realized as prosperity is not a near-certain defense against Extremism? If the body is not first infected with ignorance and intolerance -- the true disease, the tumors in the Body Politic -- it is unlikely to show symptoms, such as violent extremism with political ends.

All diseases have causes -- genetic, behavioral, environmental -- and symptoms. We tend not to notice the cancer eating us alive until the symptoms kick in, and kick our ass; and we only notice the Extremist when he or she explodes, often literally, and does the same.

Just blaming “extremists” seems to me a uniquely GOP sort of argument: It’s the Extremists, let’s cure that cancer with massive doses of Tactical-Nuke-Based Radiation! Fuck that. Religion prepares the Ignorant and Intolerant a nice cozy bunk and soft pillow, then recoils in mock-horror when the rested lunatic is up at dawn loading hollowpoints. It’s time we held it accountable for Aiding and Abeding the enemy.

J -

The best thing for people of faith to do is talk about how their faith helps them in their daily lives. I actually enjoy hearing such stories. Being quiet allows us to forget you exist and thus we only hear the extremists.

QT constantly reminds us that people of faith can also be rational and open minded except for where there is direct conflict with faith. This communication is good for everyone involved. People can only have empathy if they understand why the other person thinks the way they do. There are many things that QT and I disagree on, but there are also many things that we do agree on. I respect her opinion because I know that she is no fool and is very satisfied in her faith. I am glad for her.

I know that there are Christians as upset with this killing as I am. I would suspect that most of them are. We won't here from them much. Instead we hear from the Christofascists who think that killing a Doctor is justified to save babies. The fact that the Doctor performed only legal procedures is lost on them. They don't respect our laws, only God's laws. That is unacceptable.

Can you honestly tell me that removing any given student from a radical Islamic madrassa before the age of reason and giving him a secular education and the economic benefits to see that education realized as prosperity is not a near-certain defense against Extremism?

Imagine the faithless world in which would we live if the religious indoctrination of children were barred, and you had to convince logical adults that a great big Sky Daddy wants to throw them in a lake of fire (or whatever myth you want to use).

Elvis said,

... ignorance, paired with intolerance, is the disease, Religion an agent of metastasis and extremism one of its many symptoms.

and the smack was laid down superbly. Great metaphor!

I prefer the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) GDKyle.

It is a mythical creature that you can't prove exists because it is invisible. Also you have to accept that it is pink on faith because it is invisible. You can't see it, but if you have faith you know that it is pink and it created everything that we don't understand. It also watches over us so that it can laugh when we do stupid shit. It created us for entertainment so be funny all the time so the IPU won't get bored and make a more entertaining universe.

@ Git

I know that there are Christians as upset with this killing as I am. I would suspect that most of them are. We won't here from them much. Instead we hear from the Christofascists who think that killing a Doctor is justified to save babies. The fact that the Doctor performed only legal procedures is lost on them. They don't respect our laws, only God's laws. That is unacceptable.

More lions. Many more lions.
Massive uptick in number of martyrs.
/problem solved

People who think the Book of Revelation is some kind of blueprint for destruction or a laundry list of things to check off as you're counting down to the end times don't understand what apocalyptic writings are really about. They're not predictions of some event far off in the future, but commentaries about their contemporary times expressed in prophetic form. The so-called Beast is not some future antichrist who will bring about the rapture, but a poetic description of Emperor Nero.

Just because the fundies don't understand what they're reading, doesn't mean intelligent people should ignore the proper context of the writing.

Elvis spake "Religion prepares the Ignorant and Intolerant a nice cozy bunk and soft pillow, then recoils in mock-horror when the rested lunatic is up at dawn loading hollowpoints."

I'm a Unitarian Universalist, Elvis.

So....explain how my religion does that.

Yeah, as if Unitarian's count.

Well, you were making a general statement about religion....so it sure should apply to any of 'em. Right?

So - how does my religion prepare the ignorant and intolerant to become lunatics?

No creed? No dogma? No problem.

They believed George Bush was a Christian.

So much for God Blessing America.

It seems to me that the choice is simple:

either the Bible means something, or it's a harmless piece of irrelevant cotton-candy fluff.

Either we can hold the Bible responsible for when Christianity and Judaism motivate people to do bad things, OR we decide that it's kind of cute that people waste time watching Jesus cartoons, but let's not pretend it has anything to do with Martin Luther King or Christian charities or any of that stuff. Because, you know, it's not like the Bible has any real effect on people's behavior, right?

As for post-Augustinian theology, please remember that people who kill Palestinians, gays, and abortion doctors don't care about all that stuff. What matters is that Moses told the Israelites to commit genocide over and over again. If you ask me, post-Augustinian theology is an attempt to make people forget that what the Bible really says is to hack babies apart with swords. Any attempt to make people ignore that command is not part of the Bible, and thus irrelevant to a discussion of what blame the Bible bears for atrocities. I'm sorry, but malaria isn't what makes people get over their fever and chills- it's the quinine.

If the world ever produced something as antithetical to itself as a "Unitarian Extremist" -- a "believer" of the Unitarian Whatsit compelled by the scattered gimcrackery that is the UUFaith to blow something or someone up in the name of ... Whatever, then I'd say the Strict Dogmatic Universal Unitarian Apparatus prepared that person for lunacy. But since I've personally never met a Unitarian that wasn't just a pot-smoking Wiccan too afraid to tell his or her mommy that s/he believed in witches, I'd say the world can relax and enjoy a 21st century free of Randomly Exploding Unitarians.

Also, I should have qualified my last Serious Statement, above, by saying "Fundamentalist Religions" and not laying the burden on the whole of Religiosity. That does not, however, have any bearing on the central thesis, which is we either decouple religion -- base or fanatical, harmless or explosive -- from Politics or suffer endless cycles in which a Democratic President means Rampaging Murderous Zealots.

The only part about Elvis's piece was the bit about Control Top Pantyhose in paragraph #2. That was way over the (control) top!

# J -- " the problem with that is, if you believe in a separation of church and state (as I do) and you're a Christian (as I am...), then I think you tend to be much more private with your religion. Which leaves the soapboxes to those who are crazy. It's a difficult line b/w "I'm going to talk about my religion a lot in public" and "I['m totally embarrassed to be associated with the hatred spewed/practised by the vocal 'christians]." I've yet to figure out how to negotiate it."

I so agree. And in fact, J, when I read the general comments here, juxtaposed with really bizarre christian soapbox behaviour, my mind is in turmoil. For months now I've been trying to 'reconcile the two.'

You just earned the patented Josh Dobbin Slow Clap(TM).

People who think the Book of Revelation is some kind of blueprint for destruction or a laundry list of things to check off as you're counting down to the end times don't understand what apocalyptic writings are really about. They're not predictions of some event far off in the future, but commentaries about their contemporary times expressed in prophetic form. The so-called Beast is not some future antichrist who will bring about the rapture, but a poetic description of Emperor Nero.

Just because the fundies don't understand what they're reading, doesn't mean intelligent people should ignore the proper context of the writing.

This smells suspiciously like how movement conservatives, when meeting failure, proclaim that conservatism did not fail, but the person who failed failed conservatism.

It is the "no true Scotsman" thing.

Elvis wins the argument here by any measure; just because it is inconvenient or uncomfortable to admit this does not make it any less true.

If the world ever produced something as antithetical to itself as a "Unitarian Extremist" -- a "believer" of the Unitarian Whatsit compelled by the scattered gimcrackery that is the UUFaith to blow something or someone up in the name of ... Whatever, then I'd say the Strict Dogmatic Universal Unitarian Apparatus prepared that person for lunacy. But since I've personally never met a Unitarian that wasn't just a pot-smoking Wiccan too afraid to tell his or her mommy that s/he believed in witches, I'd say the world can relax and enjoy a 21st century free of Randomly Exploding Unitarians.

Posted by: Elvis the Dingeldein at June 1, 2009 7:57 PM

QFT
/fucking brilliant

No serious person would even consider it possible to do away with religiosity. It may even be a case of tossing out the baby with the bathwater.
That is not to say that there is any truth value in any theistic claims, but that there may be social value (at least for the individual adherent) in the delusion. Fine. Fair enough. Keep it. Attend church. Pray. Fellowship. Sing. Tithe. Raise money for orphans. Have picnics. Do whatever the hell makes you happy.
Just keep your god off my lawn, out of my schools, away from my clinics, out of our courts...
Do not inflict your god on others and everything will be fine.

I'd like to add that it seems that in America, at least, the metric of respectability for religious people is the degree to which they disregard their Scriptures.

If the Koran says all kinds of nasty stuff about killing infidels, and someone says, hey, ok, let's kill some infidels- then the hue and cry goes up that they're not a "Real Muslim"(tm.) Because the only Real Muslims (tm) are the ones who explain that kind of thing away.

Similarly, Jews who talk about how genocide is sometimes ok, because after all God told Moses to slay all the Amalekites, are considered to be fanatics. Christians who talk too much about hell are fundamentalist crazies.

But the more and more a "believer" explains that kind of thing away and gravitates towards a more nonspecific, just-be-nice-to-each-other belief system, they get applauded as the "real Muslims" or "real Jews" or "real Christians."

In short, the only way for religious people to be respectable in America is to be as much like atheists as possible, without actually being atheists. Unitarianism and Deism constitute a kind of an endpoint for this sort of logic: they're not nasty atheists (because they believe in God) but they're not nasty fundies either (because they believe in essentially what atheists believe: no Scripture has any special claim on being a communication from God, and we just need to be nice to each other.) Any substantive claim they make regarding morality, science, or politics proceeds from the exact same reason-based thinking that an atheist would use. As soon as someone starts arguing from their point of view using religious logic (i.e. the Bible says so,) they lose their respectability.

This smells suspiciously like how movement conservatives, when meeting failure, proclaim that conservatism did not fail, but the person who failed failed conservatism.

Not at all. I just believe that if you're going to quote a piece of text, whether you're using it favorably or unfavorably, you should actually understand it and its context.

The fundies love to quote the Bible. They just don't understand it. Actual thinking people should know better.

whether you're using it favorably or unfavorably, you should actually understand it and its context.

The fundies love to quote the Bible. They just don't understand it. Actual thinking people should know better.

Again, you seem to think that the text itself cannot be flawed, but merely those interpreting it. You also perform a weird dodge here, claiming that the "fundies," those who keep this barbaric text as an active player in modernity, where it has little to no place, have no claim on the bible.

This is the definition of an ad hoc redefinition; a self-sealing argument where you can simply move the goal posts to change the outcome. The "fundies" are fundamentalist believers in what is expressed in that text. Their mania is given direction by the text.

At some point, you have to acknowledge (even though it is inconvenient because your Aunt Tilly is sweet and she loves her idea of Jesus as a handsome bearded guy with intense eyes and shoulder-length hair) that the text itself contains a problem and is, objectively, a bad thing.

The problem is, at some point, a cognitive dissonance because we are all (mostly all of us) told by people we love and trust that this book is not just good but Good(TM). It is Right and Holy and Good and Loving... so we want to believe, bending iron bars in our mind, that Goodness, Light, Love and Right exists in this magic text, if only one is wise enough to see it.

To believe otherwise is to believe that our parents, our Aunt Tillies, our trusted and loved ones who wanted the best for us, performed a kind of abuse and fed us poison and claimed it was balm to heal us.

Well, they did. It wasn't intentional or spiteful, they may truly believe that they were doing righteousness or doing some sort of "right thing" by passing on this essentially bad, backward and horrible Bronze age tome of shittiness, horror, end-of-the-world anti-life eschatology, misogyny, fear-of-sex and calling it Love.

The bible is, cover to cover, New Testament and Old, a bad book, full of bad things.

That crazy people have latched onto it as a focal point for their craziness is, of course, an indictment of crazy people. Crazy people are forever latching onto literature or art and using it as a focus for their crazy: Manson with the Beatles, He-Who-Should-Not-Be-Remembered with Catcher In The Rye and the Lennon assassination.

BUT, and here's the big but: YOUR SWEET AUNT TILLY, your mom, your nice uncle who cooks great hamburgers and tells funny jokes and is an usher at a church-- ALL of them-- give these particular crazies who latch onto this particular book, continued cover and validation and political power.

A crazy who latches onto the White Album or Salinger or who decide the radio is talking to them are dismissed rightly as lunatics, because we understand that those works are just pieces of writing and hold no special power.

A crazy who latches onto the bible and uses his craziness to hurt others is bolstered, validated and encouraged (however unwittingly) by every single person who is sitting in those pews on Sunday, pretending that the archaic, ugly words being spoken from this muddled tome are "holy."

Suffice it to say, I agree with Elvis!

This dickhead was inspired by our own home-grown brand of Taliban!

That "brand" was at the least disguised as being a good Christian, although the perps brother has aready mentioned mental illness, so you can bet on that being used as a defense.

How many reports have we heard of extremists in Iraq using people that possess lower than normal mental ability to strap on a bomb!

Fuck 'em! I have nothing good at all to say about the zealots!

They lie about what Dr. Tiller did!

They lie about everything!

It seems like Elvis ended up agreeing with me - the problem isn't 'religion' - it's fundamentalism / extremism.

A lot of anti-religious loud noises for easy pandering points by many - but cheering for the position you started with isn't winning.

It seems like Elvis ended up agreeing with me - the problem isn't 'religion' - it's fundamentalism / extremism.

A lot of anti-religious loud noises for easy pandering points by many - but cheering for the position you started with isn't winning.

That's like saying, "The problem isn't the AIDS, it is the damn cold which turned into a pneumonia. The PNEUMONIA is the problem here."

You're ignoring the fact that the religion is, by definition, an adherence to a set of rules and beliefs laid out and passed down through "holy" texts. These holy texts contain clauses in them, in plain text, compelling the readers and followers to take the texts literally, and compelling them to do so on pain of eternal death.

Under such a set of circumstances, you're saying that the problem is only with those who take the words of their holy books SERIOUSLY and attempt to apply them to their lives.

I'm saying that the problem (and problem here is defined as shooting a doctor, flying a plane into a building, wearing a vest of C4 and walking into a public square, etc.) are real world manifestations of the cognitive dissonance which occurs when one is told that Hate is actually Love.

I'm very sorry for QT, or my maternal grandmother, who was a sweet, kind woman who truly helped most everyone she knew, but that book on her shelf which she revered and thought so much of was and is actually a bad, ugly thing. Her need for it to be "Good(TM)" made her rationalize that every good impulse in her must have come from It; but IT, in this case, objectively, was not good. It was, in fact, Bad.

And for people who ACTUALLY read the thing looking for guidance (like all the "good, nice, sane" christians would think one should do) will find that the literal guidance in the book is backward, ugly and wrong. That they call it Love is immaterial; in practice it is hate.

They're just *actually* practicing what is preached. At some point, you've got to look at the preaching honestly.

Josh - I'm a Unitarian Universalist .

Explain how this...

"You're ignoring the fact that the religion is, by definition, an adherence to a set of rules and beliefs laid out and passed down through "holy" texts."

Applies to me and my religion....

Since it...ya know....doesn't.

Religious Teabagging...

In a sense, I don't see the religion bashing as much different than libertarian government bashing...

It's very easy to throw out a list of Bad Things that (government / religion) have done throughout history.

Of course, it's easy to throw out GOOD things, too. But that wouldn't suit their purpose.

Again, you seem to think that the text itself cannot be flawed,

And again, just because you want to think that's what I'm saying doesn't make it true.

Obviously, you're having trouble understanding this point, so I'll try to be as clear as possible: I'm not saying that the Book of Revelation isn't "flawed". I actually agree with you on the point that the Book of Revelation is a load of baloney.
In fact, what I'm saying is the exact opposite: That it's a product of it's time and it's based on common cultural assumptions of the 1st century. Again, I am not saying it's some kind of magical roadmap. That's the mistake people who actually do believe that the text is without flaw make. It's a mistake that many Christians throughout the centuries have made and the fundies continue to perpetuate.

The text is what it is: Words written nearly 2000 years ago to comment on events of its day. It's like the writings of Tacitus or any other ancient writer. Historians don't presume to understand Tacitus outside of his historical context. The mistake people make when reading the Book of Revelation is in believing that it is some magical checklist that tells us what to look for when the end times are a-comin'. It's a common mistake that people make when reading apocalyptic writings and this is just one surviving example of such texts.

What I have been trying to explain is that the Book of Revelation is not what people think it is. It is a piece of writing that uses poetic imagery to comment on its own time, not a predictor of future events. It was a common practice in ancient times to "discover" a work of prophecy that was designed to convince people that the current bad order would soon be overthrown. But it was intended to convince to people that those events would happen in their lifetime, not in some far off future.

If you would drop the snarky remarks about "Aunt Tilly", you'd realize that I agree with you that the BoR is a work of fiction. It's just that it's really a work of past fiction, not of future fiction. My point is merely that both believers and nonbelievers have misinterpreted what the BoR actually is.

Lee:

With all due respect, to equate your Unitarian church in terms of influence, real-world effect and impact on the general definition of 'Organized Religion' (Evangelical christianity, Catholicism, Islam, Orthodox Judaism, etc.) is specious at best and delusional at worst.

Josh - you didn't specify a religion - you said 'religion by definition', right?

What I have been trying to explain is that the Book of Revelation is not what people think it is. It is a piece of writing that uses poetic imagery to comment on its own time, not a predictor of future events. It was a common practice in ancient times to "discover" a work of prophecy that was designed to convince people that the current bad order would soon be overthrown. But it was intended to convince to people that those events would happen in their lifetime, not in some far off future.

If you would drop the snarky remarks about "Aunt Tilly", you'd realize that I agree with you that the BoR is a work of fiction. It's just that it's really a work of past fiction, not of future fiction. My point is merely that both believers and nonbelievers have misinterpreted what the BoR actually is.

I understand your point, but you seem to be failing to acknowledge that there's a centuries old practice of interpretation of that text that now has rendered whatever original intent may have been as nothing more than an academic point.

There are literally multi-billion dollar operations at work branding that book as magical, holy, and containing all the answers to any questions past or present, and those flaws of a bronze age people, being brought to bear as answers to modern questions, result in all manner of dissonance.

I studied Arthurian literature and history in college and now as a hobby/passion; I know what you are driving at with the notion of viewing a compiled narrative tradition as being somehow at odds with the original intent of some of its earliest texts.

QUICK: What is Camelot and who is King Arthur? You have a whole idea of a storyline, a narrative thrust, a meaning, symbology, etc. in your head when you hear those names. For all intents and purposes, those are NOW the 'facts' of the legend, because a legend is a collective awareness of a fiction. The origins are things for academics to quibble over.

What you're ignoring is that in practice, it doesn't matter to the common layperson that a) there was probably no ONE Arthur, or b) that if there was one, he was probably never a king, but a war duke, or that that c) Lancelot and Guinevere were later French inventions grafted onto an evolving story...

The origins are, paradoxically, the least important part of the story.

So too with modern Christianity, modern organized religion, I tend to think. What exists NOW is the printed KJV and New International Version of the Bible,and the past 100 or so years of interpretation that have NOW defined the term "christian." In the last 40 years or so, a virulent strain has risen to power, but to somehow discount this as merely a recent outcropping and not indicative of "on the ground reality" is like saying that Islam itself *ISN'T* the problem, but rather the Wahabi interpretation of the past 90 years or so.

In practice, that happens to define what the religion IS, at the moment. What it WAS or was SUPPOSED TO BE is all theoretical or historical.

All of this ignores not only that someone actually, in the real world, loaded a gun and shot a doctor, but also that a very well organized series of overlapping groups are, even now, proclaiming him as a hero and doing so because they follow the Bible as the literal word of an omnipotent creator.

Lee:

If you'd like me to make special dispensation for Shintoists, Jainists, Unitarians, and other non-influential, usually pleasant but ultimately silly people, I will include an asterix in further posts and a footnote.

What I have been trying to explain is that the Book of Revelation is not what people think it is. It is a piece of writing that uses poetic imagery to comment on its own time, not a predictor of future events. It was a common practice in ancient times to "discover" a work of prophecy that was designed to convince people that the current bad order would soon be overthrown. But it was intended to convince to people that those events would happen in their lifetime, not in some far off future.

If you would drop the snarky remarks about "Aunt Tilly", you'd realize that I agree with you that the BoR is a work of fiction. It's just that it's really a work of past fiction, not of future fiction. My point is merely that both believers and nonbelievers have misinterpreted what the BoR actually is.

I understand your point, but you seem to be failing to acknowledge that there's a centuries old practice of interpretation of that text that now has rendered whatever original intent may have been as nothing more than an academic point.

There are literally multi-billion dollar operations at work branding that book as magical, holy, and containing all the answers to any questions past or present, and those flaws of a bronze age people, being brought to bear as answers to modern questions, result in all manner of dissonance.

I studied Arthurian literature and history in college and now as a hobby/passion; I know what you are driving at with the notion of viewing a compiled narrative tradition as being somehow at odds with the original intent of some of its earliest texts.

QUICK: What is Camelot and who is King Arthur? You have a whole idea of a storyline, a narrative thrust, a meaning, symbology, etc. in your head when you hear those names. For all intents and purposes, those are NOW the 'facts' of the legend, because a legend is a collective awareness of a fiction. The origins are things for academics to quibble over.

What you're ignoring is that in practice, it doesn't matter to the common layperson that a) there was probably no ONE Arthur, or b) that if there was one, he was probably never a king, but a war duke, or that that c) Lancelot and Guinevere were later French inventions grafted onto an evolving story...

The origins are, paradoxically, the least important part of the story.

So too with modern Christianity, modern organized religion, I tend to think. What exists NOW is the printed KJV and New International Version of the Bible,and the past 100 or so years of interpretation that have NOW defined the term "christian." In the last 40 years or so, a virulent strain has risen to power, but to somehow discount this as merely a recent outcropping and not indicative of "on the ground reality" is like saying that Islam itself *ISN'T* the problem, but rather the Wahabi interpretation of the past 90 years or so.

In practice, that happens to define what the religion IS, at the moment. What it WAS or was SUPPOSED TO BE is all theoretical or historical.

All of this ignores not only that someone actually, in the real world, loaded a gun and shot a doctor, but also that a very well organized series of overlapping groups are, even now, proclaiming him as a hero and doing so because they follow the Bible as the literal word of an omnipotent creator.

Oops-- sorry about that weird double post. I don't know how that happened.

Josh,

By "non-influential, usually pleasant but ultimately silly people" you mean Unitarians like John Adams, Rod Serling, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Emerson....right?

Seriously, Josh - do you know a damn thing you're talking about in this regard?

Seriously, man - study up a bit before you drop ignorant effing insults....

http://www.famousuus.com/

Josh,

By "non-influential, usually pleasant but ultimately silly people" you mean Unitarians like John Adams, Rod Serling, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Emerson....right?

Seriously, Josh - do you know a damn thing you're talking about in this regard?

Historical Unitarianism, like the rejection of the idea of the Trinity as three distinct aspects, or modern Unitarianism, which seems to be for people who like to go to church but don't want to get bogged down in religion?

Also, let's go through these:

ADAMS: Raised a Congregationalist, uneasy with religion in general, ambivalently compromised with going Unitarian as a seeming "lesser of evils" choice, since going stone-cold Atheist was not something done in social circles of the day.

SERLING: Born and raised a semi-agnostic, but cultural jew, married a girl whose family was Unitarian. He converted, in no small part, to ease family tensions, and ended up kind of liking some of the more liberal Unitarian writings.

LLOYD WRIGHT: Was a baptist minister, but converted because his wife's (influential and monied) family were all Unitarians.

EMERSON: His DAD was a Unitarian minister, yes. He was into Vedic scripture (and all other manner of exotic mysticism) and was a pioneer in Transcendentalism, which was in large part a movement spawned in protest to (surprise, surprise!) Unitarian doctrine.

Seriously, Lee - do you know a damn thing you're talking about in this regard?

Buuuuuuuut... all of this ignores that there's a whole cottage industry in Christian theology that is anti-science, anti-progress and pro-gun that has resulted recently in a dead doctor and a curtailing of women's rights.

Oh, Lee.

I **ALMOST** commented, because your list of famous unitarians was so random and disconnected, "Jeez, what did you do, Google "FAMOUS UNITARIANS" and scribble down the first few names from a Unitarian web site, without looking into what each person's background was?"

But I figured that was sort of mean; I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you had collected those names over the years, like how I know that George Clooney, Orson Welles, Willy Mays and the explosion of the Hindenburg were all born on May 6th, as I have a vested interest in that date, being born on it, too.

But it looks like that' just what you did.

Oh-- correction: Serling's wife's family was Protestant. They had problems with her marrying a "creepy little jew," I think they called him. She convinced him that converting to the sort of non-committal Unitarian church was a convenient compromise, since her parents would be like, "Well, that's christian, isn't it?"

*I'm* as much a "unitarian" as he was.

Josh - you're trying my patience with your lack of honesty.

You insult UUs as "non-influential, usually pleasant but ultimately silly people". You're clearly wrong but rather then admit that, you tap dance trying to show that some or all weren't actually UUs - but even then, you point out that they were. I didn't give the whole long list - it's at the link.

I wasn't raised UU. I was raised Christian Scientist, then I was an atheist and discovered UU about 7 years ago. Do I count as UU? I'm a 'convert' after all....

I don't like it when anyone is intentionally dishonest in an argument, especially when they are starting off with an insult. You stated that UUs are non-influential; bullshit, Josh.

You've had the truth about this fact pointed out to you. You're now twisting and turning to avoid admitting you were wrong. Ugly.

Actually, I went to secondary non-UU sources to confirm before I wrote my entry..for example...

http://www.adherents.com/people/pa/John_Adams.html

http://www.litkicks.com/RodSerling/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1026/is_n3_v145/ai_15216344/

But I included a link to the list for ease of 'all in place' shopping....

So - you attack my motive incorrectly AND you're factually wrong. 2 for 2, Josh.

Go on over to RedState. Your level of scholarship and argumentation are more appropriate there, I think....

ALSO: Lee, it is disingenuous to throw up people who are famous and, in their fields, influential, who all happen to have (tangential) connection to Unitarianism then claim that Unitarianism is therefore, as a societal force, as influential as evangelical mega-church christianity or catholicism.

Precisely NONE of the people on your list were famous for espousing Unitarian doctrine or advancing Unitarianism as a balancing sane force against more radical christianism.

To say that the Unitarian faith is, relative to evangelical christianity and catholic and protestant christianity, non-influential is not a wild or crazy statement.

They are to modern, organized Christianity as Angel is to greater Vampire-kind. Or as Odo is to changelings.

You've had the truth about this fact pointed out to you. You're now twisting and turning to avoid admitting you were wrong. Ugly.

How have I "had the truth pointed out to me?" An architect, a writer, the 2nd president and a guy who rejected Unitarianism and is famous for being a transcendentalist are all unitarians, because I, Lee Stranahan, say so, which PROVES that modern, Organized Christianity is balanced and not at all radical or theocratic, as you claim it is. Pay no attention to the dead doctor behind the curtain! Or the fact that only 2 out of the 8 or 9 (?) Republican candidates for president last cycle rejected belief in evolution! FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT, bitches! (drops mic, walks off stage)"

You did not school anyone or anything.

Serling, in particular, is a funny example, because I happen to know a bunch about him. It was a convenience move to solve a thorny family marriage problem.

TV's last angry man, as much as I love and adore him, was not as influential a societal force as the catholic church. He was not a leader of the Unitarian church or a spokesperson.

You'd be on firmer ground bringing out the old tropes of MLK, Ghandi, etc. for the argument that organized religious leaders can be forces for progressive societal change.

I've got opinions on that, too, but what you're saying is incoherent at best.

My last comment was held for moderation because of too many links - but what I said was....

I checked secondary sources before I posted - here's two...both mention Unitarianism because it's accurate, not because they were written by UUs...

http://www.litkicks.com/RodSerling/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1026/is_n3_v145/ai_15216344/

But now you're playing the dishonest game changing what you said....you said Unitarians weren't influential. Now you've switched to something like they had to be religious leaders or spoken broadly about religion all over the place....

More bullshit.

Serling and Wright's beliefs came out in their art, which marry a deep sense of humanity with broad spiritual themes. As for Emerson, when you say he rejected Unitarianism for Transcendalism, it's obvious you don't understand that there's no contradiction there....Emerson's views are in line with modern UU, especially....

But - you're not being honest, so no argument is going to be possible. I mention this other stuff for the sake of other readers, who can research themselves whether your insults about Unitarians being silly and non-influential are true or false.

Lee:

I say this with affection. Do you know who you are being?

Stan, from LIFE OF BRIAN. Unitarianism, in this case, is your desire to become Loretta.

How you somehow managed to self-righteously steer a conversation on the underlying motivating directive, pointing crazed nuts in a particular direction at doctors and women, into a referendum on your feeling of the historical impact (or not) of certain prominent Unitarians in various fields is as baffling as it is ludicrous.

"Don't you oppress me!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

Do you know who you're being?

Not the best person you could be.

You make a statement that's incorrect so I refute it with facts and cites. So you change the statement, and I refute that with facts. Etc.

So don't pretend to be baffled or change the subjects. I'm responding to things you said that aren't true. Now you're playing the game of acting 'confused' by it and acting as though a Monty Python link will amuse and distract people.

Please rethink what you're doing.

Lee:

Let's make out.

I have facebook-friend requested you, on the theory that it will humanize the both of us to one another by way of seeing vacation photos and realizing that all this is just the talk on a cereal box. (While we debate the finer points of a smile on a dog. But then again, I'm not aware of too many things. I know what I know, if you know what I mean.)

Lee, you're missing the point. If your rebuttal to the observation that when people try to force their religious teachings on others through violence instead of through legal, political means - and effectively change people's legal rights through terror (as in, people will think twice about visiting an abortion clinic now) - the teachings of that religion should be held, at least to a certain degree, responsible is "but I'M a Unitarian Universalist!", then you don't have a rebuttal.

To me, it's a little like the torture issue. Of course, the enormously vast majority of Americans don't torture anyone. But when an American tortures someone else in the name of America, it reflects on all Americans and it should, and does, open the question of what American values are, and how they should be preserved and protected.

So if you're religious, and someone does something awful in your religion's name, of course it's appropriate - even necessary - to ask questions about where those ideas came from. And context doesn't figure into it: if you knew the "correct" interpretation and context, then you wouldn't be doing crazy things.

Lee:

Just so you know, the link was to show how a discussion about one thing can be earnestly taken off track by a point that the other participants feel is terribly tangential and (yes) silly, but is very serious to the person in question.

However! I think we've gone 12 rounds, at this point, and I'm content to let the judges scorecards tell the tale of the "fight."

What were we talking about, anyway?

What seems to be lost in the shuffle here is the fact that Lee has proven my point. He wants to prove that UU is respectable, so he points out that it has no Scriptures- just like atheism! In America, the way to be respectable is to be as much like an atheist as possible, while still technically believing in God.

It seems like Elvis ended up agreeing with me - the problem isn't 'religion' - it's fundamentalism / extremism.

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!! Wrong! Once again, there you go RedStating again. How do "fundamentalism" and "extremism" become instantly equated? My aunt and uncle are fundamentalist Christians and they've never exploded themselves in a public place. Strict adherence to dogma and doctrine doesn't an Exploding Extremist Make, Lee Stranahan. You forgot the Root Cause, which is Ignorance.

I only qualified my use of religion in this case because it's only the Fundamentalists that tend to mess in the politics, and then go boom when they get their Jesus Underoos in a political bunch. The reason I snidely waved off your Unitarianism is that said "religious" organization ranks right up there with the League of Pygmy Lesbian One-Eyed Frog-Licking Pirate Queens in terms of political efficacy. How many times did we hear hand-wringing in 2008 over how The Unitarians Will Vote? Even Fox didn't bother with that demographic.

I would say that Extremism is rare without Fundamentalism, but the inverse isn't at all true. And my point never changes: We have got to figure out a way to decouple social issues from religion when it comes to politics. Handing out free passes to a radical religious movement that wants to legislate its own morality and then pouts with hollow-points when it can't simply cannot stand.

How did blowing oneself up become the standard for extremism?

Fundamentalism is defined as "Strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles."

And from Wikipedia...
"Extremism is a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society. The term is invariably, or almost invariably, used pejoratively."

'Strict adherence' is extreme.

And you blew off the Unitarian example because it disproved your overbroad statement. The rest of your ignorant insults about my religion are backpedaling.

I believe the "extremism" in question is of the "religious" variety, Mr. Stranahan. Don't pretend that the term "religious extremism" does not conjure up images of suicide bombers or any other type of violent religion-based act.

As has been iterated to you time and time again, you belong to a very small religion. There are easily 250 churches in a 50 mile radius of where I live. Do you know how many of those are UU? Zero. Do you know how many are dogmatic? Every last one of them. Do you know how many are dogmatic to the point of fundamentalist? Easily half. Want talking in tongues? It's airing on our local access television station right now. Please don't condescendingly pretend that entire sections of this nation aren't being held hostage by dogmatically-motivated evangelical voters.

'Strict adherence' is extreme.

Extreme? Yes. Extremism? No. The key is the pejorative usage. My aunt and uncle are extreme believers, but they don't practice extremism in the context of this discussion, which is the sudden explosion of Fundamentalism into Violence. I haven't been making these points explicitly because I thought they were sort of Patently Obvious.

I blew off the Unitarian example because you knew it wasn't relevant to the discussion at hand. You're smart, so you know that I don't really think all religions abide murdering abortion doctors; but I made too broad a point and you injected your own religious beliefs to counter. I can't help that my own personal experience with Unitarians -- and I did qualify my remarks as simply my own opinion -- has been that they'd be happier in the First Church of the Holy Hobbit than in anything resembling a Christ-Based Chapel. But that's just me.

I'm utterly failing to be convinced by the Fundamentalism = Extremism By Default argument, the Genius That Is Wikipedia notwithstanding. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say this, but Fundamentalism + Ignorance = Trouble, while Fundamentalism + Intelligence = Vaguely Annoying Relatives You Have To Hold Hands And Pray With At Thanksgiving. We wouldn't be having this discussion, Lee Stranahan, if these Extremists didn't blow themselves, or others, up.

Strict adherence is extreme? Really? Have we gotten to the point where anyone who attempts to order their lives by any kind of code is considered "extreme"? Wow...

I personally find that definition quite self-serving. Its like wanting to have your cake and eat it too. No one is perfect, but attempting to adhere to a moral code is not extreme - failure to do so at all times means one is human - failing to try (for instance by labelling those who do as extreme) is hypocrisy. In my opinion.

On the other points, I agree with Elvis - extremism is a symptom of ignorance and political manipulation dressed up in ideology.

QT

Elvis and Lee, I'm a fan of you both. And you both make some valid points.

The insults regarding the UU faith are not only ignorant, but factually incorrect. Why? There are about 200,000 UU's worldwide. Granted that's very small...a tiny portion of the world's population and nothing compared to the other major religions. However to say they have no effect politically, socially, etc. because they are small in number is to deny the power of any individual to affect our world, regardless of faith.

And if history teaches us anything, it is that one person can make a tremendous difference. And it doesn't have to be someone famous....the obscure, everyman can do something that changes the course of things. In that vein, I can tell you off the top of my head the stories of several UUs, people you've never heard of, who have both political impact in the US and who have an impact in other countries. They do charity work and save lives every day. And the people they help, help still others. And UUs do it WITHOUT DEMANDING that those receiving help must first listen to some bullshit religious spiel. In fact, they never have to listen to a spiel of any kind.

Basically the argument over UUism is a red herring in this discussion. Elvis you insulted UUism as a method to discredit Lee, as if to say 'you have no dog in this hunt'. That's the only reason Lee became defensive and then set out to prove the importance of his faith.

Regardless, Lee is correct when he points out that "fundamentalist" religions are by definition "extreme" versions of those religions. In almost every case that I know about, Fundamentalism refers to a branch of religion that relies on "literal" interpretations of religious texts (usually certain pieces of those texts, to be sure).

Sociologically speaking, they rely on interpretations of sections of text that re-affirm their view of the world (Psychologically, it usually re-affirms their pre-eminence compared to the rest of the world--US v. THEM). In addition, these types of religions tend to be woven into every aspect of the person's life becoming a "closed" system wherein the individual associates only or mostly with others who share those beliefs (i.e., a total institution). Eventually they have kids and they raise those kids in this "closed" system.

What I'm trying to say is that you're having a 'which came first' argument--The ChickensesTM or The EggsesTM

. Does it matter what came first? The "closed" system or the people who result from the "closed" system? You can't get rid of religious texts....burn 'em all and more will be written. Odds are good there's some Crazy Ass MoFoTM out there writing the next holy text that justifies child/man love and describes when the next astroid will hit earth, transforming us into spiritual entities that will then colonize new planets and mate with aliens.

You can't kill all of the extremists--The ends don't justify the means. Although the next pair of tie-wearing Mormon's that approach my door may have to listen to me for once while I wave my Baseball Bat of ToleranceTM around.

So what do you do? Marginalize the influence of the extremists-separate church and state. Do not allow "closed" systems of belief to hijack free societies and the non-extremist religions (notice I don't say democracy or capitalism here, on purpose).

Good discussion fellas!

Good comments, Tina...balanced and I agree with your characterization of my comments.

QT - As the cite I used mentioned correctly - the term 'extremism' is almost always pejorative. So, of COURSE it sounds insulting.

Religious extremism is almost always fundamentalism....the converse isn't true, which is why I used the word 'extremism' in my posts.

I mentioned this in Lee's post, so I'll bring it over here as well. Elvis mentioned that extremism, and acts that use God as justifiction are part of a disease that begins with indoctrination and ignorance.

That cleans things up nicely; unfortunately, it doesn't work.

The ROOT cause of ALL crime is desire of power. It is the desire to impose one's will upon another that not only drives, but also spurs one into action.

Religion can, and sometimes does utilize this basic human instinct. Nevertheless, unless you cut out that part of the brain which makes us individuals, you'll never eliminate extremism and acts that derive from it. Religion is no more responsible for extremism than is abortion or taxes.

I understand your desire to focus blame on something you can lash out at, but in doing so, you mislead people.

We just experienced a shooting at an army recruitment center where one soldier died. The attacker calls himself a converted Muslim who hates the US Army. This man will use his religion as the reason he did it. Nevertheless, it was his basic instinct to impose his will upon the US Army that MADE him do it. Religion was only the excuse. I can buy an excuse from a comic book store. I can get any excuse I need by watching violent movies, or simply hating certain people. None of that erases the fact that what lies within me would only need a target. The justification is non-essential.

You could rid the entire world of religion, and you'd have failed to rid the world of one ounce of extremism.

You could rid the entire world of religion, and you'd have failed to rid the world of one ounce of extremism.

I agree with this point entirely. However, what you seem to be missing is that this point has been expressed, over and over, by Elvis & also by me.

I stated a bunch of times that a crazy will look for a motive and a cause to attach his or her Crazy to... Many crazies decide that they have a relationship with a celebrity from their TV or that a classic work of literature is telling them secret messages.

The key difference is that those people do not have an established infrastructure and validation of mystical beliefs being propagated by well-meaning enablers who compartmentalize their cognitive dissonance with buzzwords like "faith" and "spiritual truth" when hearing objectively awful stuff presented as holy and loving.

If someone thinks Bruce Boxlietner is talking to the them and guiding their actions with secret, coded messages from BABYLON 5 that they can interpret, that person is marginalized as a loon. They may well be dangerous if unmedicated or allowed to spin their fantasies to the point where they are no longer sustainable, but no one is *propping up* their fantasies and validating them.

(Well, no one except that fucking TV's Scarecrow, of SCARECROW AND MRS. KING fame)

The crazies who tell you that God talks with them and is guiding their actions and has secret messages imparted to them by interpreting passages in a book, those people have a large, financially entrenched and gigantic enabling system in place, tacitly (or oftentimes implicitly) confirming their beliefs and encouraging them.

You are right. There will ALWAYS be crazies who are ciphers and zeros who need to attach themselves to a delusional cause which they think imparts Greatness to themselves.

Whether or not they are actively incubated and pointed in the direction of women and doctors and science and separation of church and state is another matter.

Also, for Lee-- not that this is in any way cogent to the discussion at hand, but it may surprise you to know that I'm not an atheist by any stretch.

I've got a whole host of gods, powers, aspects, archetypes, muses and fairies that I only half-jokingly talk to all the time. It is a function of being a (kinda) only child and latch-key kid.

Most of me (99 and 44/100 %, or thereabouts) knows that it is an exercise in one-player Socratic method, but the same amount of me that holds out a "?" for wondering if there IS a Yeti in Tibet or sasquatch in Canada or a plesiosaur in Loch Ness holds out a little bit of a "?" that the "answers" I get come from somewhere also outside of my own head.

So I'm not against a little harmless craziness if it makes one feel better or less alone, just *institutionalized* craziness disguised as a social good.

But it's also about politics. The guy who killed the doctor wasn't just a homicidal kook looking for an excuse to exercise his "desire of power", nor was he responding to the voices on the TV or in his head. He had a purpose - a POLITICAL purpose - to prevent women from exercising their legal right to have an abortion.
And that purpose was planted there by the teachings of his RELIGIOUS organization, and reinforced by the community of religious people to which he belongs.

Elvis, correct me if I'm off-base here, but I think I'm repeating your main and most important point when I say that this combination of religion and politics is the really dangerous part. The group that not only dominates your social circle, not only delivers, reflects, and reinforces your moral character, but is also determining the fate of your immortal soul - when they tell you that this doctor is a baby-killer, that he's a murderer, that God hates him, AND that the current political administration is actually encouraging him (so don't look for help from the legitimate government authority) - and oh, by the way, here's the doctor's address and phone number - what do you think will happen? To hold the religion's teachings entirely blameless makes no sense. You can say "well, it's not the religion but the interpretation and context that's wrong", but that doesn't matter to the congregation in question here. Their religion promoted violence to achieve a political goal, and there's certainly blood on a lot of allegedly holy hands.

The ROOT cause of ALL crime is desire of power. It is the desire to impose one's will upon another that not only drives, but also spurs one into action.

Yeah, this falls into the Fancy Rhetorical Device™ -- popularized by Socrates in his argument in Second Alcibiades -- known as the "No Shit, Sherlock." I believe, Mr. The Pooper, that you'll see me saying that repeatedly vis-a-vis the sudden lack of political power perceived by these Fucking Lunatics For Jebus now that their Holy Commander-in-Chief is scooping dog turds off lawns in Honkytown, TX.

I understand your desire to focus blame on something you can lash out at, but in doing so, you mislead people.

No, Mr. The Pooper, I don't think I do. My point is simple and straightforward: Anti-Abortion Murderers are inspired by a real or perceived lack of political power to do The Killery, but that particular breed of gun-toting douche would be utterly castrated without Jesus Taking The Wheel, or carrying him on the beach, or however He tags along when one of his Kooks goes Judge Dredd.

Acts of violence inspired by religious zeal are almost entirely justified Here On Earth by the promise of Glory and Harp Solos in Teh Heavens, or the Multitude of Virgins and Pork-Free Treats in Teh Paradise. Or the Eternal Lord of the Rings Marathon in wherever it is Departed Unitarians find themselves when they're inexplicably martyred. To discount this factor in the sort of Extremism we've been discussing in this thread is entirely obtuse and Misses The Point.

Elvis - here's the question I think those who are arguing against religion being the relevant point are asking:

If extremism is propelled by lack of political empowerment and ignorance, why is it important to specify religion as its own special category of extremism? Ought resolving the issues of empowerment and ignorance solve all forms of extremism?

I think you're saying that religious extremism has a specific cure, which is permanent disempowerment of religion, and that particular solution is of course favored by secularists, and by our governmental culture. I could argue the reverse, though - that a balance of religious/ethical/philosophical voice (some sort of 4th branch) in government would effectuate the same thing - people not feeling unempowered because they aren't. Be that as it may, I want to ask you what are the cures for other kinds of extremism? Why shouldn't we take the whole issue of extremism and treat it as one thing?

Sincerely asked,

QT

QT, religion really is its own special category of extremism. What other sort is supported by a highly-organized, well-respected group that not only reinforces an extremist's beliefs but provides extremists with a community, a moral guide, and a ticket to Paradise? As Lee (inadvertently) illustrates, it's religions with political power that are the most dangerous in terms of extremism (Kooky Fundamentalist Islam in the middle east, Kooky Fundamentalist Protestantism in the US) - the religions without much organized political influence (like the UUs) tend not to foster murderers who try to promote political goals. So keeping religion the hell away from government is really the only way to stop, or at least decrease, this kind of violence. And sure, there are other kinds of extremists, but different strategies will need to be employed. "Extremism" is far too broad a category to think that its causes and preventive methods are remotely similar from group to group.

And really, you know as well as I do that your "Religion Branch" of government is ridiculous. What religious groups would sit on this council? Who would be excluded? And by the way, there already is a part of government that provides an ethical/philosophical (and yes, sometimes religious) voice, one that tries to find a universal set of morals and enforces them. It's called The Law.

Part of me agrees that it's all about power, or lack thereof. However, QT asks "why shouldn't we take the whole issue of extremism and treat it as one thing"? I think the answer to that is that non-religious extremism doesn't appeal to a "God" that is all-knowing and therefore cannot be anything but correct. This "appeal to authority" makes otherwise rational beings, non-rational. Other forms of extremism are not usually created by the "closed system" that religious ones are and are therefore easier to monitor and root out. Elvis is making the point that relgious extremism is special, particularly when combined with political backing. And he is correct. So QT, a fourth branch would never work.....it would all turn into a theocracy before you could say "hell in a handbasket". Religion and government should be separate...I honestly think this is the only way.

This thread is one of the better ones we've had around here for a while. I can just about relate to all the viewpoints from the perspective that I've been almost all (not Muslim, UU, Baha'i)of these in my life, including pro-life poster carrying anti-abortionist.

I've changed. I had been early life indoctrinated in Christian faith. I was part of the '70s Jesus Movement and held most of what now is viewed as extremist positions.

The tipping points that changed my life were all about the power trippin' preachers, Bishops and general wacky people I met on my journey. These people and how they acted out their faith; using it as a means for all manner of perversity and manipulation of others for their gain, be it monetary, sexual, or just plain mind fuckyness have lead me to reconsider all of it.

Elvis, Lee, QT, et al - thanks for this dialogue! This is brilliant discussion of the very things I wrestle with and am actually enjoying in ways I'd not thought intellectually possible until recently. The sad part is the mind fuck this jerk from my neighbor state (KS) and now of late from near my neighborhood (Westport,KC MO)had so bought into that took him to Sunday's murderous decision. He is the type of person that I used to be around. They may not own it but I just know some of my former colleagues are just happy to know this went down. I just couldn't bear to be engaged near that sort any longer. Reason and reasonable debate is so much better.

PS. PPP how'd you do the upside down thingy with your sig?

I still don't understand Elvis' point...

How does a lone wolf shooting a doctor relate to separation of church and state? It seems like the 'keep government and religion' separate stuff is completed unrelated to the issue at hand.

It seems like a rant against religion that lost control, flipped and skidded across the freeway.

Lee, you really think this was a random act of violence? Really?

Though I will say that it IS a bit silly to argue church vs. state, in that keeping the two separate is an absolute no-brainer and shouldn't have to be argued.

But really, Lee? "Lone wolf"? No outside influence? Really?

Lee:

If you're really putting that forward, the notion that anti-choice violence doesn't speak to an undue sense of entitlement from religious organizations who want to affect the Stat and the further notion that this guy was a 'lone wolf' who randomly targeted this doctor by whatever odd bit of schizophrenic logic that Manson used to find Sharon Tate, then I actually apologize for arguing with you.

You may be genuinely not that smart and genuinely unable to understand the points others are trying to make.

Either that, or you are far too committed to an internal notion of needing to hit a certain contrarian-quota on any given number of issues out of some desire for attention and a gut-level feeling that your more-than-occasional departure from what you perceive as the "party line" makes you somehow both insightful and brave.

I honestly, from your comments here, cannot tell which of these two options is more probable, but I really do feel -- at this point, in any case -- that they represent the best possible reasons for your willful denial of both reality and the refusal to actually consider what people are saying to you.

Lee:

Question-- what was your stance, on the record, when Malkin famously published the names and addresses (?) of some UC Santa Cruz students because she disagreed with their politics, causing them to be harassed, threatened, etc.

If someone shot one of those students the next day, would you hold her, in any way, at least morally -- if not legally -- culpable?

Gee, Josh - third option is that you didn't get what I was saying...

I was listening to CNN today and a 'terror expert' described the guy as a lone wolf because he wasn't sent out by a group with orders.

THAT'S ALL I MEANT BY LONE WOLF...IT DOESN'T MEAN "NOT MOTIVATED" - Duh!

And Josh - seriously, go fuck yourself with the shrink act trying make me sound dishonest because of a need for attention. Fuck you is the only valid response when you can't seem to stop lying.

And still - what does a guy who was NOT A LONE WOLF AT ALL but clearly influenced by Fox, Operation Rescue etc...

How does THAT possibly relate to church and state separation?

"How does THAT possibly relate to church and state separation?"

Because the reason that the religious groups that influenced him are getting more... proactive because they've lost political power. Kooky Fundamentalist Protestants have wielded (and in some (read: Republican) circles, still wield) serious political power, and now that the current administration is less openly beholden to them, they're angry and getting more incendiary in their rhetoric and tactics - tactics designed to achieve political goals.

So if they (or any other religious group) never had any political power at all, they wouldn't feel compelled and empowered to force their kookiness on everyone else, politically or (increasingly, now) otherwise.

Are you going to tell me to go fuck myself, or do you see my point?

on the amtrak now, so limited avail. But:

I persist in disagreeing that religion is a special case for extremism. Nationalism can also be a special case. Any identity-forming ideology has the potential of being extremist. Gangs in the US demonstrate this. In this regard, perhaps the Baha'i adage, "The earth is but one country, mankind its citizens" is the appropriate cure. A shared identity must necessarily reduce identity conflicts.

QT

Lee:

I don't think your need for attention is dishonest. I just think that your opinions may be formed, at some level, from that need for attention. You may well not be aware of it. I see the same thing from Bill Maher, from time to time. There's this internal kind of self-imposed contrarian-street cred where you can be sure that at least 1 out of every 5 stated opinions will be a kind of ego-gratifying, "Here's how free-thinking **I AM**, I'm going to side with the assholes on this one!" through-line. I'm also aware that this is a self-satisfying loop; these responses fuel your indignation and resolve that you're right and those who are incredulous when confronted with your opinions are either assholes or intellectually dishonest. I just suggest that a lot of it stems from some need, on your part, for that kind of indignation, in what appear to be regular intervals.

Or at least, that was ONE of the possibilities that I could think of.

Adding, to joshdobbin's comment: Rick Warren!

You mean the Rick Warren thing that I was saying wasn't that big a deal and it turned out to not be that a big deal? That one?

No, I mean the one where you said that Rick Warren isn't homophobic because religion simply doe not breed homophobes. That one.

And Josh - you're the asshole on this one....

Did I side with Fox? No...
Did I side with the shooter? No....

I sided AGAINST extremism. That's it.

Anything else is YOUR bizarre need for attention by lying endlessly then sending me a Facebook friend invite....

does not*

MZ - of course not. You didn't say anything remotely to warrent it....

Still doesn't make any sense....what is advocated? Polticians can't be religious? Or talk about religion? It's nonsense....

This wasn't a church state issue...

Lee--

At the time of the friend request, it was late at night, and we were entrenched in a back and forth "battle," where it was clear that we each had different and antithetical points of view, but had vigorously expressed them. I said, 'Hey, we just went 12 rounds, let's declare the fight over, hey?'

I made whimsical entreaties to make out with me. I had assumed that you were, in some part, like me, where in the midst of a back and forth, you could entrench yourself and go for bear, but at the end, agree to shake hands and say, "Hey, this is all just sealing wax and cabbages and kings, on some level. Nice match."

I had assumed that a friendly gesture, sharing more mundane, humanizing interactions would lead to a better understanding that different perspectives don't have to result in, at some point, "go fuck yourself!"s.

I am sad that this turned out not to be the case.

I was not attempting to lie or mislead or cloud any issue.

I do stand by my assessment of your probable need for attention and possible thickness (this made more intransigent as you feel more attacked) but this is from a very limited amount of data: some pontifications on a political blog, where declarative statements and pronouncements sometimes lead to self-caricature in pursuit of the last word, or bruised egos.

I'm perfectly willing to believe you are more than the sum of the parts presented here-- again, that was the impetus behind the friend request. It was an actual, literal thing: "You know what? We disagree, but this was sort of fun and let's be friends."

The invitation still stands.

Fucking Myselfingly Yours,

Josh Dobbin

I might be running out of ways to explain this to you, Lee - which may well be my fault.

This has nothing to do with politicians being religious, or being able to say anything about religion. But when religious groups like the Kooky Fundamentalist Protestants are used to having the ear of political power (see: Bush, G.W.) and having considerable influence over political decisions (see, among other things: the Rumsfeld Religious Slideshow), they get upset when they lose that power and resort to other methods of influencing people (see: publishing the address and phone number of a certain doctor).

SO, if we can find a way to ensure that religious groups never have that kind of influence (see: church and state, separation of), then we can worry at least a little less about both of the above. Both of which, by the way, are bad (and I defy you to disagree on that one), and not nonsense.

It is very much a church-state issue. A religious group trying to wield influence over a political issue. Doesn't get more church-statey than that.

Lee - I think it became a church/state issue becuase it started out as a church/politics issue and Elvis was asking, what can we do to stop these religious extremists.

For the record, I don't blame Jesus or Mohammed or any of enlightened, prophet-like individuals who spawned religions. The religions are what came after and what get distorted and propagated by idiots, who get a power kick out of the set up. Then people in the media, who also like to take advantage of that "built in" audience, like O'Reilly, use that "religious" viewpoint to slant the news.

The Tiller murderer was a "lone wolf" in a law enforcement sense of the word, but Elvis is right, he came out of a culture of hate that is feeling very disenfranchised and powerless right now. This situation encourages and fosters nutbags to act out.

I think it became a Church/State question when Elvis posed it as such... when a giant slaughter with too-easily-obtained firearms occurs, it sparks a dialog about the meaning, intent and practical implications of the 2nd amendment.

When a religious movement, upset that their religious interpretation of what should or should not be allowed, attempts to change the laws to fit with their religion and, failing that, terrorizes those engaged in legal actions they find sinful, up to (but not limited to) murder, then when do we address the issue that religious doctrine has no place in civil law?

What's funny is that an oft-quoted, but seldom followed edict of that Roman-era cult leader, 'Render unto Caesar that which is Caeser's...' is summarily ignored by the dominionist people who insist that His(TM) law should be THE LAW.

Elvis was making a thoughtful, if somewhat rhetorical, point on the deeper implications of taking religious thought seriously and actually applying it to one's life and Lee decided that being a Polyamorous Universal Unitarian Homeschooler, his existence as a self-professed "religious person," nullified Elvis's point in a surprise checkmate.

Lee seemed to think that Elvis was making an "all crows are black" argument, and jumping up and down saying, "but look! I'M A WHITE CROW, therefore you are undone! Game, set, MATCH: STRANAHAN! FLAWLESS VICTORY! GO FUCK YOURSELF!"

Lee seemed to either not understand the point, or be in such a hurry to rush to an imagined center by way of his randomly-generated contrarian urge that he recast the point into something else and decided that he (Lee) was the secret and constant voice of reason, tut-tutting the passionate extremes of Elvis's musings.

If Lee were a D&D monster, there'd be a special rule saying "at the end of every three turns, perform a 1D4 check. If a 1 is rolled, The Stranahan will attack whatever has just been asserted with its complete opposite. If challenged, it will act as a Berzerker in a rage. (See BERZERKER)"

I understand your point, but you seem to be failing to acknowledge that there's a centuries old practice of interpretation of that text that now has rendered whatever original intent may have been as nothing more than an academic point.

I acknowledge it by saying that they are wrong.

And that's my final point on this topic.

I'm done addressing Josh or reading his comments. I'm just not interested. I'm sorry for getting upset; I let Josh's constant lie n' run tactics got to me. I realized last night he wasn't being honest. I should have stopped then.

As for Elvis...

Sorry, it still doesn't make sense except as a sideswipe at religion. Explain exactly what Elvis is after - what practical result would satisfy him that would have made any difference in the Tiller murder.

Elvis did exactly what I was talkimg about because (unfortunately) I see liberals do it all too often - he is attacking all religion because of relatively isolated incidents of people using religion as an excuse while, in fact, violating religion tenets like 'shalt not kill'.

It's a ridiculous oversimplification and it ignores the fact that many good things - for example, the civil rights movement and a HUGE amount of charity - come from religion and broad religious principles such as concern for one's fellow man. These are, in fact, progressive principles.

The snide, insulting, mindless anti-religious dogma is playing right into the conservatives hand. It allows them to pretend that they are the guardians of virtue when, in fact, they are the ones distorting the actual message of liberals like Jesus.

Kyle - you're now ignored, too. I never said 'religion doesn't breed homophobes' and you know it. I am done talking to people here who aren't even trying to be honest.

For purposes of clarity, Lee, could you compile a 2009 IGNORE list?

This blanket "dishonest" charge is kind of pathological. I think you were upset because you felt a little embarrassed trying to defend a bizarre position that a boutique little religious group of well-meaning but muddled progressives is as influential as mega-church christianity.

I think your use of "liberals" there, in your last comment, is also pretty telling.

"It's a ridiculous oversimplification and it ignores the fact that many good things - for example, the civil rights movement and a HUGE amount of charity - come from religion and broad religious principles such as concern for one's fellow man."

Sorry, but that's kind of a big pile of irrelevant.
Religious groups can do all the charity they like, and there's no use denying that people are going to vote based on their personal, not always perfectly logical, beliefs, or that people's religious affiliations inform those beliefs.
That's all fine. But what's not fine is the direct influence over political power that certain religious groups have enjoyed the last little while, and which has been diminished since the Bushies left office - leading to the panicked, desperate push for direct action through "unofficial channels". But the goal, of forcing their *religious* viewpoint on *political* issues on others, is no less political and so no less a violation of church-state separation. I haven't heard you rebut this, Lee.

What's more, the last part of your paragraph above misses the point that religion certainly does not hold a monopoly on "concern for one's fellow man". There are plenty of very nice atheists out there. "Broad religious principles" like "don't kill", "don't commit incest", "don't steal", "don't hurt other people", etc., are just as much a part of a secular morality as of religion, and are therefore considered sufficiently sensible and universal that they're written into the law. No religious influence over politics required. So how do you defend it?

I did not use quotation marks when providing my admittedly-snarky summary of your Rick Warren post, Lee, so don't accuse me of putting words in your mouth. You said, at least one time, that Rich Warren wasn't actually homophobic, but that every major religion considers homosexuality a sin and, therefore, they reject homosexuality only because whatever god-like-creature wants them to shun homosexuals. Because people who oppose gay marriage aren't bigots, right?

How exactly was I being dishonest in that assessment? I may be anti-religion in the sense that I disagree with it and will voice my criticisms, but I am not trying to pass a Prop-8-style bill aimed at outlawing it. Stop trying to stigmatize the act of disagreeing with the religious concept, as popularly defined. And I'm not dogmatic about my atheism, anymore than you are dogmatic about your belief (I assume) that ManBearPig does not present a threat to you. It is extremely difficult to be dogmatic about having a skeptical, questioning outlook on everything. Dogma is reserved for sets of beliefs, not disbelief.

Will someone (other than joshdobbin, of course!) repeat that to Lee since he's apparently ignoring me?

"How exactly was I being dishonest in that assessment?" should have stood alone as its own paragraph. Bleh.

I have the dubious honor of sharing genes with a mild (but functional) psychopath, and his behavior sheds some light on this debate. He tends towards fundamentalism and extremism, but has avoided the religion pitfall thanks to education.

He's found an outlet, however, in environmental extremism, along the lines of Earth First and The Animal Liberation Front. He does violence to property but not people. With the "wrong" upbringing and education, he could easily have been a violent religious fundamentalist.

I think you are mostly right, Elvis. Fundamental religion fosters religious extremism, but if there were no religion, we'd still have extremists who would find each other and create organizations that destroy things and people.