Sparrow,

Spare that goat. Indeed, you are not a troll, as I know full well. If irischerman wants to meet a troll here, she can try talking to CCNL.

ender- could I be so cruel to the goat? :-)

I was thinking of giving her a box of chill pills though.

Come on Sparrow. MS SHERMAN may be a troll, but if you through a goat over the bridge once in a while so she has something to knaw on, she can be quite....aw well, still a troll.

irischerman- is that how you always react? You attack me, accuse me of being a G-d Hater, you accuse me of saying things I never did, you refuse to believe anything I've said including things that are easily researched by googling but I'm the troll?

You sound like a 3 year old in a sandbox- when you run out of things to say you resort to name calling.Go home iris, and grow up.

"Posted on October 1, 2008 17:37

rb-freedom-for-all :
Who belongs to this "emerging progressive religious movement"? I have not seen nor heard of it and do not believe it exists. Saying it exists does not make it so. Mr. Jones, please explain. Where is it headquartered? Who is in charge? How do you join? Who determines if you are progressive enough, or too regressive, to be permitted to join or participate? Or is this just a theory that has no basis in fact?"

I also would like evidence that this "group" exist. Is this a "jailhouse conversion"? Now that Reichwing Xtianity is on the decline(at least according to the author) do we have "Reformed Fundamentalist" writing books that it was all just a big joke and really they were always rational and tolerant Americans that never had a goal of forcing their version of xtianity on the Nation.

I call Bull Sh!t.

And the authors (and several poster) clain that the BIG SCARY ATHEIST PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT IS MAKING THEN LOOK LIKE BAD PEOPLE is quite silly.

With only 6% of Americans willing to admit to being atheist/agnostic and less than 15% total claiming not to be Christian, we have the political power of whale dung laying on the ocean floor.

Again. Bull Sh!t

Sparrow,

Ok, ok. I finally figured you out. You're a troll and you're trolling in this forum. It took me a little while but I finally figured you out. Now I know who you really are.

TROLLING: Messages intended solely to annoy and/or offend other users by going against the clear nature of a board, topic or chat room are not allowed; to deliberately post false or controversial messages to gain attention for the sake of attention; deliberately provoking arguments on newsgroups or bulletin boards, with no other intent than to gain attention for the sake of attention.

robert B1- ah, if only I had the answer. It seems that any measures would be punitive to one or the other. Perhaps we need to clearly define the responsibilities of anyone providing health care and medicine. If someone decides to break the law, thye get taxed, heavily.

I don't know - I really wish I had that answer but I just feel this country has gotten so far off track with putting the individual before the common good. I live in a diverse Brooklyn neighborhood, mostly black. I am proud of being Jewish, and I love the differing cultures in my neighborhood. It used to be religion was a private matter. I was raised that way. I believe in respecting the differences and I believe some differences will never be fixed. They don't have to be. That's the whole basis of the founding of this country. People came here to be free and unafraid. My family escaped from Russia. Many Russian Jews show Mongolian features, a result of the Cossacks rampaging through the shetls and raping women. When we traveled down south to see my brother at his military camp, my parents were terrified that local people would know we were jews. I still dislike travelling though the south.

Sorry, Robert B1- a little long winded there. Sort of Bidenesque :-) I guess I believe so strongly in the great melting pot, and in the rights and freedoms we have, it saddens me to see how these concepts have been twisted and turned on themselves to promote exactly the opposite.

Sparrow --

OK, that's fair. But I don't think you can pass legislation forcing pharmacists to carry products against their wishes. Where would such government action end?

So what's the solution? Perhaps doctors themselves should start having in-house pharmacies?

Robert B1- but in health care is is vitally important that providers not judge patient care, especially in situations they are not qualified to judge. Basically, it isn't their place to question a doctor's decisions on caring for his patient. If you allow it here, when will it stop?

Sparrow4 --

You wrote, "But they dispense medications that your doctor has prescribed and as such pharmacists, nurses, doctors etc., have a higher calling than pushing their own religious beliefs. It's called Do No Harm. To your patient, mind you."

Perhaps, but that's asking people to check their morals (misguided though they may be) at the door to their place of business. I think the current Wall Street debacle has proven that that's a bad idea.

You also wrote, "One pharmacist actually refused to fill the prescription and then refused to give it back to the woman. In some small towns and cities, they may not have a choice of places to go as there are in a big city."

OK, that kind of behavior is unacceptable. But I hardly think that this practice is the norm. Unless we want to make all health care professionals government employees, we can't force them to provide products that they don't want to. It would be like requiring a Christian bookstore to carry pornography because it's just as legal as the Bible.

In terms of small-town America, I understand your concerns. In this case, perhaps the expansion of Wal-Mart and other chains is a good thing. The free market can be a bear, but it does tend to inspire healthy competition.

Iris wrote:"Unbelievable. You're totally passing the buck on responsible communication. Your comments were full of anti-Christian themes and you're blaming me for *misreading* what you wrote? Are you kidding me??

Indeed I do blame you. Because my references were to specific people and incidents- by the way, not hearsay. Either they were my own experience or they have been well covered in the press. And you gain make the mistake of talking about specific points as "anti-Christian themes. I never said they were but you are a blind fool to ignore the reasons why there is a "religion as problem."

I specifically bashed Harvest Christian fellowship for what they did- to me, by the way.Why don't you try telling a New Yorker a couple of weeks after 9-11 that "unbelievers" are burning in hell.And I wasn't the only one she said this too. One of them was a lawyer. Watch how far it gets you. There were a number of other incidents- all of which we done by the religious right. Now if researchable facts and my first hand experience are not enough, well, what can I tell you? It isn't irresponsible to tell the truth, whether or not you like it. So perhaps you didn't misread- it's just that your reading comprehension is at fault.

You can very easily google the pharmacy issue and the medical records issue and the Terry Schiavo issue. If you missed that in 2004, it's because you're suffering cranio-rectal syndrome, as a poster from another thread calls it.

Robert B1- true, they are. But they dispense medications that your doctor has prescribed and as such pharmacists, nurses, doctors etc., have a higher calling than pushing their own religious beliefs. It's called Do No Harm. To your patient, mind you.

One pharmacist actually refused to fill the prescription and then refused to give it back to the woman. In some small towns and cities, they may not have a choice of places to go as there are in a big city.

The real issue is that allowing people in these positions to name themselves judge and jury is a very slippery slope. Basically, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen because allowing strangers to decide your medical care is dangerous, unethical and unprofessional.

Sparrow,

"So maybe you didn't assume, but you certainly misread."

Unbelievable. You're totally passing the buck on responsible communication. Your comments were full of anti-Christian themes and you're blaming me for *misreading* what you wrote? Are you kidding me??

"And if my point wasn't communicated to you it's because you approached with the idea that anything said about the behavior of the religious right is an attack instead of a statement of fact."

Umm, no, I didn't. I simply confronted YOU on YOUR negative comments. I'm no fan of the Christian Right, nor am I trying to protect them.

"You didn't deal with ANY of the facts I presented. None."

Facts? FACTS? What "facts?" All of what you wrote was hearsay, not facts. What on earth are you talking about? Facts are things that can be researched, analyzed and even proven. What you offered were *stories* and *feelings*, posted in a forum no less, and that just doesn't equate to "fact."

"I did call specific people bastards- the ones who came to ground Zero and tried to have Jews, such as myself, and Moslem volunteers kicked off the site. Read what I wrote: "She came with a group associated more or less with Franklin Graham, I believe. Harvest Christian fellowship. Their sole purpose at the site, flaunting the rules governing disaster relief, was to proselytize.
I never forgave those bastards."

Yes, you called them bastards. No, you didn't state they were trying to kick Jews and Muslims out of Ground Zero in your previous post. This means one of two things: you forgot to write it and falsely blamed me for "misreading" your post OR that it didn't really happen and you're making it up now to use it as justification for your hateful statement.

You previously bashed certain groups of Christians for not taking responsibility. Well, you need to apply that to yourself too, my friend. You haven't been responsible with your posts, I called you on it and now you're passing the buck to me. Sounds like you don't really know what responsibility is.

Shalom.

Sparrow4 --

You wrote, "Today, you can go into a pharmacy and the pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription for birth control pills (not just the morning after pill) because it "goes against their conscience.""

Seeing as the pharmacist is running a private business, doesn't he have the right to decide what products he will dispense? After all, you also have the right to seek another pharmacist to fill your prescription. It's not as if the government has banned birth control pills for moral reasons.

Who belongs to this "emerging progressive religious movement"? I have not seen nor heard of it and do not believe it exists. Saying it exists does not make it so. Mr. Jones, please explain. Where is it headquartered? Who is in charge? How do you join? Who determines if you are progressive enough, or too regressive, to be permitted to join or participate? Or is this just a theory that has no basis in fact?

Iris- I was making points on the religion as problem issue mentioned in the original article. I did call specific people bastards- the ones who came to ground Zero and tried to have Jews, such as myself, and Moslem volunteers kicked off the site. Read what I wrote:"She came with a group associated more or less with Franklin Graham, I believe. Harvest Christian fellowship. Their sole purpose at the site, flaunting the rules governing disaster relief, was to proselytize.

I never forgave those bastards. "

I was referring to the group harvest Christian Fellowship and believe me when I tell I had very good reason to call them bastards. So maybe you didn't assume, but you certainly misread. And if my point wasn't communicated to you it's because you approached with the idea that anything said about the behavior of the religious right is an attack instead of a statement of fact. You didn't deal with ANY of the facts I presented. None.

I ALSO WROTE:"I know many deeply religious and spiritual people. I know none who feel that its "their way or the highway." My life would be so much the poorer without them in it."

So again- before you post an unwarranted attack on someone else, you should carefully read what they wrote and think long and hard about who is a hater and who isn't.

Sparrow,

I'm not *assuming* you hate Christians. In one of your earlier posts, you described some Christians you met as "bastards." Somehow I don't think that's a term of endearment. If you truly don't hate God or Christians, then I'll just take your word for it.

You're right about one thing: I don't know you. All I know about you is what you wrote here in this forum and it smacked of baseless hatred towards Christians. I drew the conclusions I did based on what you wrote, plain and simple. By the way, I did mention in my post that I based my perception of you "based on what you wrote."

Perhaps you should be more careful in your writings, take the time to think about what you write with the intent of communicating responsibly, instead of recklessly posting comments, passively instigating arguments with others.

Shalom, buddy.

You see, Irischermann, this is what people like you do. You nothing about me, you have no idea what my beliefs are (well, obviously I'm Jewish, and it's a little hard to be a Jew and an atheist at the same time) and like many before you, you ASSume I hate G-d and Christianity. My closest friend for the last 25 years is a born-again Christian, I have spent more time in Churches out of respect for my friends, than I have in a temple. In fact I have many more Christian friends than I do Jewish ones, and trust me, we discuss these issues all the time.

But thank you for totally proving my point- that certain groups of Christians will never take responsibility for the situation we now find ourselves in- you're a prefect example. Because, although I have quite a few reasons to disdain Christianity, I do not. I blame people and I backed up my comments with actual incidents. But nowhere did I say I hate Christians or G-d. Policies I can hate. I don't blame Christianity for the blindness and stupidity of some of its followers- you seem to have no problem with blanket, ignorant condemnations while still being hypocritical enough to blithely pass over real issues with a "plenty of Christians who mess it up but they're human after all, just like you and me."

well, yes and no. FYI- I don't cheat on my taxes, run red lights (no car) or try to break the law. Nice try, but no. But sticking your head in the sand and avoiding what makes secularists and humanists and quite a few religious people upset is exactly why there is a religion as problem" issue. It isn't the religion, however. It's you.

Sparrow4,

Based on what you wrote, one can see your hared of Christians is simply a double-standard (i.e. you hate Christians but don't mind Jews, Muslims, et al). Obviously, your childhood experiences helped in creating this disdain for them. Well, no person (believe it or not) is perfect, so get over it already. Yes, there are plenty of Christians who mess it up but they're human after all, just like you and me. Are you perfect? No. The answer is certainly No.

Think of it another way: as an American citizen you're required to obey the law. You're proud to be an American, right? You probably think you're a good citizen, correct? Well, I'm sure there were times when you may have run a red light, fudged your taxes a little or perhaps you didn't vote during an election some time. Does that make you a bad American? Does that mean ALL Americans are reckless, dishonest law-breakers too just because you messed up ? No. Again, the answer is No.

You'll be the second person I ask these two favors of. Here they are:
Please be more honest with your hatred of God and his believers and don't ever claim to be a Humanist.

To claim you're a Humanist would be an insult to those who actually are as well as the very definition of the word itself. Humanists don't believe in God like others do, of course, but they seek truth, not pervert it. Too many God-haters like you tout Humanist beliefs but still busy themselves with intellectual posturing and sanctimonious atheist jargon. If you're going to hate Christians, at least be consistent and hate ALL religions otherwise you risk being labeled a biased hypocrite.

It's always so interesting to hear religious people complain about the intolerance of non-believers or secularists. Despite being a huge majority, despite them wielding vast power and influence, despite their insistence on determining our political policies based on their own version of morality, they insist they are the victims.

When I was a kid, every year we had a Xmas program and all of us were required to participate. I had to sing about the birth of Jesus every December. To this day I know far more Xmas carols than Jewish songs, thanks to the NYC Board of Education. All the holidays we had were Christian- they don't call it Xmas and easter break for nothing, you know. With the High Holy days, I had to take off from regular classes- my fellow students didn't. Jews, Muslims, Buddhits, Jains, etc- we were simply ignored.

I remember when the religious right decided we had to stick "under G-d" in the Pledge of Allegiance and when one woman, Madalyn Murray O'Hare, had the guts to protest for the separation of Church and State, she was demonized (and still is).

A few years ago Christian groups called for boycotting stores that didn't say Merry Christmas instead of Season's greetings, or Holiday Greetings.

Under Bush, the religious right sought and gained more power. By doing so they infringed on everyone else's right to make medical decisions for themselves and everyone's right to privacy. Terry Schiavo's husband was smeared and dragged through the mud- not because they cared, but because the Bush Administration wanted a political whipping boy. One state demanded medical records of women who had gone to Planned Parenthood to see if they could bring criminal charges against doctors or patients.

Today, you can go into a pharmacy
and the pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription for birth control pills (not just the morning after pill) because it "goes against their conscience."

And the president is trying to get a bill passed outside of congress that will pull federal funds from medical facilities who don't allow their personnel to refuse to treat a patient based on their own personal "conscience." And notice- no one is defining what constitutes a question of conscience so someday very possibly you will be refused medical treatment for an STD because the doctor or nurse thinks you had sex, you deserve it.

An evangelical Christian woman once walked up to me in the Salvation Army tent at Ground Zero- I was a site supervisor then- and told me only "Christians" should be allowed there because it was a "christian" site- never mind all the Jews, Muslims and people of other religions who died that day. And this was just another in a line of such incidents.

And yet Christians still insist they are the victims here. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I wince when reading tirades by non-believers who cast eternal ignorance on believers, regardless of the believers tolerance to others.

When this occurs, I can't tell a born-again athiest from a fundementalist religious person. Their tone sounds like the believers who say I'm going to hell because I don't interpret their holy books literally, as they do.

Most non-religious people I meet begin as non-tolerant and then grow that sence of tolerance, since it is our family and friends we love and live with who enspouse these supernatural beliefs.

I too have wondered how large the "religion as problem" crowd is, but I think it's underestimated. I often hear progressives implore critics to cite examples of liberal politicians disparaging people of faith. Thankfully, electeds aren't so dumb as to openly trash religion, but it's easy to see in progressive social circles an innate suspicion of religion. As a religious progressive, I sense that it is still part of the culture. It is getting better though.

finally! It is so great to hear a new voice that calls for and believes in democratic pluralism. I've always believed this is what the Founding fathers really intended and if anything, the last 8 years have only proved that the vision of the religious right is the worst thing for this country.

I know many deeply religious and spiritual people. I know none who feel that its "their way or the highway." My life would be so much the poorer without them in it.

The only time I met someone who felt her religion gave her the right to make heaven and hell pronouncements was from a Midwestern, evangelical church. i wa a volunteer at Ground Zero and it was only a few weeks after 9-11. the fires were still burning, the smell was horrifying and this woman told me she "felt sorry for all those who died on 9-11 without accepting Christ because they would burn in hell." I'm sure you can imagine the reaction of a native New Yorker such as myself, who had been under the Towers that morning. It wasn't pretty. She came with a group associated more or less with Franklin Graham, I believe. Harvest Christian fellowship. Their sole purpose at the site, flaunting the rules governing disaster relief, was to proselytize.

I never forgave those bastards.

While Jones is correct to criticize the "religion as problem" crowd, he fails to recognize that such people are only a small minority among progressives. Most others appreciate the contributions of the progressive religious movement, and are grateful to count them as allies against the theocratic demagogues. The religious progressives I have encountered recognize that while religious belief can influence proposals for public policy, ultimately such proposals must also have secular arguments.

Part of the problem is that the media focuses on extremist voices in most social movements to the exclusion of moderate voices, simply because the extremists make for better copy. Religion is no exception here - we hear mostly from the demagogues and not the progressives.

What vision is clouded by the reality that "religious people ultimately prefer a theocracy of their own religion to democratic pluralism; that religion breeds incivility and intolerance; and that religious passion is dangerously irrational and makes people of faith unreliable partners."

The right-wing Dobsonite neochristians running America now fit this bill well.