Skip to main content

Imagine stumbling across a diary that said this:

Judaism to me has always seemed a dangerous religion.  For all of its benefits and peaceful sides it is now greatly outweighed by avarice and greed.

Anywhere I see a majority of Catholics I see gross oppression of indiviudal rights and governmental roles.  They remind me of why democracy will never work in the Congo, Venezuela or anywhere else with Catholic majorities.

If black Baptists ever gain too much power in voting, the United States could very well fall to extremism.

And yet this diary, which applies those exact sentiments to Muslims, is not only still active, but has been recommended by a number of posters.  Posters that I've respected for quite a long time.

EDIT: Some people accused me of "burying" this disclaimer, so I'm bumping it. Some of these recommenders may have been recommending the "discussion" rather than the content of the diary. However, given the inflammatory nature of the topic, I would hope that these recommenders would have SAID something about the discussion before simply bumping up the diary-- most didn't. I guess this gets into issues of the meaning of recommends, but I'd always thought that if you recommend without commenting against it, you're implying that you support it.

Islam is the biggest religion of the third world.  It is a faith that holds great currency among some of the poorest people on the planet.  As such, it should not be surprising that it's often used to justify sad and terrible things, or that it's difficult for Muslim immigrants to integrate into developed cultures.  This is not because of any regressive element of faith, but because of simple poverty and racism.  In any faith, the values of the poorest people are never as egalitarian and accepting as the values of the wealthiest and best educated.  Using the regressive attitudes of some Muslims to justify anti-Islamic prejudice is like using the homophobic statements of some black leaders to justify racial discrimination.

Islam, in fact, has a long history of being one of the forces for good in the world.  Anyone who knows their history knows that Christian Europe stayed in its ghetto for millenia, imprisoning, torturing, and oppressing any Jew, Gypsy, or other minority that came into contact with it.  Islam was the faith that engaged with the world, reaching everywhere from Spain to Indonesia.  Muslim traders connected every major empire and polity on the globe with peaceful trade, and cross-pollinated everything from Hindu mathematics to Greek philosophy.  Islam had a positive effect in many of the places it touched, ending practices of human sacrifice and brutal slave prostitution in most of the places it controlled.  When Europe finally did emerge, it was with bloody warfare in the Crusdes, and, later, full-scale colonial exploitation.  Through the whole history of European colonialism, Islam was often the defender of non-European groups-- perhaps the most poignant symbolic moment being the slaughter of Jewish women and children after the Crusders "liberated" Jerusalem from the "evil" Saladin (who had presided over a multi-ethnic city).  The ham-handed way that Israel was established has sown discord in the region, and has warped this image, but that should not blind us to the long history of Muslim-Jewish comity preceding the 1950s.

EDIT: As I said in the PARAGRAPH BEFORE THIS ONE, Islam has aided and abetted many immoral things as well. No shit! We hear about these things every single day from our lazy news organizations. My point is that every faith has elements of brutal violence in their past. We should not be singling out Islam as a religion of violence, as MANY posters in this thread have suggested, because that label ignores so many layers of complexity. I'm not arguing that Islam is inherently better than any other faith.

Islam has always been a source of learning and education in the world, and it is only a consequence of the last few decades of ill treatment that the hotheads and violent lunatics have taken power.  This is not unique to Islam.  We live in a country that started a bloody war to protest a tax hike.  How would you feel if you thought a foreign power had taken away your land, pushed you into institutionalized poverty, and supported evil men to rule you?  Now I'm not saying that the concerns of radical fundamentalist leaders are valid, but I AM saying that these problems have far more to do with regular, dirty, mundane fucking politics than faith.  It wouldn't matter if the Middle East was a hotbed of atheists or Wiccans; if the political situation was the same, they would still be pissed off and violent.

I am not a Muslim.  But I AM a member of a religious minority in this country-- a Hindu (which is a faith that's had its own problems with Islamic radicals lately).  And it deeply saddens me to see that on a LIBERAL site like this, in a community that ostensibly stands up for liberal values (and I dearly hope that religious pluralism is still a liberal value), a position so blatantly reactionary could gain such traction.  Supporting ignorant nativism like bassman's diary reduces us to the level of Fox News and Free Republic.  I have to say, my faith in this site has been shaken by this diary's popularity, particularly among such leading posters as Maryscott and Delirium.  As a religious minority, I need to know that liberals in this country are still committed to the protection of all faiths, because the moment we begin to make exceptions is the moment religious pluralism dies.

EDIT: I hope this clears up a lot of confusion about what I was trying to say and do with this diary. Oh and as for the poll, I intentionally kept it in the crudest language possible because I really wanted to see what people thought about pluralism in this country and on this site. When 1/3 of the posters are willing to support even this very crude standard, I think there's a major problem.

Originally posted to ChicagoDem on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 05:52 PM PST.


Should religious intolerance be ok on DKos?

36%338 votes
5%51 votes
58%548 votes

| 937 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  because... (none)
    just like republicans, liberals tend to paint people using big broad strokes.  It's an American thing I suppose.  Generalize, create a stereotype, and label it evil.

    so you think I'm a troll? Well kiss my hairy troll nalgas then

    by MetaProphet on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 05:57:25 PM PST

    •  It more a HUMAN thing (4.00)
      When a serious challenge is made, the human tendency is to respond in kind.

      Only widespread acceptance of self-restraint, backed by effective enforcement of such norms, holds any civilization together.

      Further, abiding by such norms is an active, individual choice. "society" doesn't make it; specific persons do, taking their cues from where they will.

      And doing so is difficult, when a critical mass of persons choose to despair of civility, and choose instead to act as if those closest to them are their most implacable foes.

      And when that occurs, there is a natural tendency to choose to hit back, sometimes a little bit harder than one is struck.

      That path, of course, leads to alienation and decline.

      It's only Nero-esque if the city is burning. :)

      by cskendrick on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:11:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed. (4.00)
        When restraint wins over, productive exchanges are permitted to flourish, like here, where a poster takes the time to explain their position to the diarist brought up in this diary.  The diarist then expresses gratitude.  Compare this to the other threads.
        •  On that very topic (none)
          In Britain, burning cars is all the rage, too.

          In fact, Britons intentionally burn about 70,000 cars a year these days.

          That's twice as frequent as French vehicle arsons.

          It's only Nero-esque if the city is burning. :)

          by cskendrick on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:00:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I've read that comment (none)
          three times now.

          I don't how you agree with it, because, honestly, I can't tell for the life of me just what point of it was.

          "the fools, the fools, they've left us our Fenian Dead" (Padraig Pearse - Gay Revolutionary)

          by padraig pearse on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:04:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Don't buy it (none)
          Rioting is the national birthrite of the French.

          If the second and third generation of their cheap labour pool want to riot, then so be it

          The same was true here in Watts and Chicago.

          What should they do?

          Rebuild the Bastille?

          If your national ethos is based on Liberty, Equility and Brotherhood (remember that great scene in Casablanca?) then so be it.

          The French have had many internal rebellions -

          It is their national pride.

          Last night, here in New York, a 14 year old black boy was killed - an innocent kid - crossing the street when a high-drama NYPD in pursuit - rams a car BANG and the star student is dead.

          The fact is, that the circumstance is not that different from the incident in France.

          For anyone who's old enough to remember -  but - the rosa parks of the French Revolution was  a child - another aristocratic faux pas - they just killed the kid.  Ran him over in their SUPERDOUBLESECRET rush to get to the palace.

          A dead child.

          As Karl Rove might say "Dead kids??? You have to be joking!!"  Come on, Bushie - they were insurgents - or Palestinians  - or Fags - or something - we don't have the time to know just who they are, just that we have to stop them" (And, NO kids were killed - just terrorists and Islamofacists")

          Killing your children is always a bad start.

          To be honest, I wouldn't mind torching a few cars myself

          "the fools, the fools, they've left us our Fenian Dead" (Padraig Pearse - Gay Revolutionary)

          by padraig pearse on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:44:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  What of self-applied labels? (4.00)
      Does not the politicized sector of American Christianity sell and celebrate its "brand"?  

      Does it not prescribe its beliefs as the only acceptable beliefs for all people?  

      Is it not absolutely flagrant in using religious organizations, language, symbols, and leaders for political purposes?  

      Does it not launch invective at the spiritual decency of anyone who opposes it politically?

      How does one discuss this sector's conduct without mentioning these facts?  I'm at a loss.  

      "Injustice wears ever the same harsh face wherever it shows itself." - Ralph Ellison

      by KateCrashes on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:19:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (none)
        But as a far left progressive Christian, I've been told off several times, as if I'm Pat Robertson here on Daily Kos, what a worthless piece of shit my spiritual beliefs are and the reasoning behind the comments had nothing to do with my beliefs or Christ's had to do with the misconception that Fundies have the slightest thing to do with Christ's words.  Didn't matter one iota when it was explained.   The hatred runs deep in some people towards the word (because, of course, it's nothing more than a word with one definition as defined by the fundies and bigoted "Christians" who barely resemble a single word from Christ as portrayed through the translations we have available today....right).  

        The difference, as I've unsuccesfully pointed out many a time here, is (as you insinuate) SELF-LABELED Christians who merely use the term for self gain and power...and use the entire bible as Christianity.....vs. believing that Christianity is inherently belief in the words of Christ alone.

        Unfortunately too many times (sometimes ignorantly, sometimes out of spite, and sometimes out of unwillingness to accept the difference) there are those here who refuse to note the difference between the two concepts (which are completely at odds with each other to begin with if people would take the time to realize waht they are hating...and no there have been times here where "hate" is exactly what I would attribute the comments to).

        I'm not saying it's the norm at DailyKos.....because it's simply not.......but it's happened way too much here for my tastes.  

        George W. Bush, Resign NOW.

        by tlh lib on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:47:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Have ever heard of sectarian wars? (none)
          Please don't tell me that some further extravagance of understanding has been withheld.

          Your beliefs number among the many that simply should not enter into debates about how a democratic nation should be governed.

          •  I wish it was that simple (none)
            I lived for 20 years (okay, 18) in Ireland.

            sectarianism is a far more complicated, self-fufilling and self-enriching process then I think you admit here.

            the very issue I think the diarist set out to express was the fact that that very debate (you seem to call for) was made impossible by the restrictions of our own ignorance (cultural, religious AND DoubleSuperSecret)

            Oh, and, btw,

            Do you really think the issue we're debating is how a Democratic nation should be governed?

            I would have thought that obvious.

            By democracy.

            (Isn't that the question his statement begged?)

            "the fools, the fools, they've left us our Fenian Dead" (Padraig Pearse - Gay Revolutionary)

            by padraig pearse on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:56:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  lecture me about my beliefs based (none)
            on what I just said if you must....but....your superficial words went beyond what I just said AND you realize you didn't address a single word I said, correct?

            Good stuff.  Thanks for the response.   It was quite stimulating!  Maybe next time.....

            George W. Bush, Resign NOW.

            by tlh lib on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 03:37:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Superficial? (none)
              You do not do yourself justice with the position that you are one of the good religionists, and not at all pushy like those types who should not be allowed to fly the flags of piety.

              That position is in the mold of every religionist looking to compel attention. Is it part of your religious belief that others must listen to yours?

              I took on your primary theme -- there are those here who refuse to note the difference between the two concepts -- and declined to go deeper and deeper into the path of righteous comparisons that lead to crusade and jihad, because there is no rational basis for resolution. We say "peace", they say "salaam", and before we can figure out why, everyone is improvising explosions.

              I meant only to warn of the eternally dangerous anger lurking beneath that idea, not to amplify the anger. What you call my superficiality was my best effort at restraint. It's a challenge.

      •  Why do wrtiers put up diaries to inflame (none)
        religious controversy?

        This above all: to thine own self be true,... Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS

        by Agathena on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 11:39:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  American thing? (none)
      That was snark right, or were you inadvertently buttresing your argument?

      Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

      Feingold for President

      by Goldfish on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:37:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The problem as I see it (4.00)
      This week was the 25th anniversary of the beginning of a long national nightmare: the election of Ronald Reagan, marking the beginning of a resurgence of right-wing-wacko, dirty-tricks Republicanism from the ashes of Watergate.

      They've done astonishing damage: undoing the damage of Republican foreign policy, fiscal policy, and their assaults on both 1) civil liberties and 2) rational policy-making oriented toward serving the collective good (as opposed to narrow special interests) will fill up a reform agenda and consume vast resources for 25 years -- if we ever manage to get control of the agenda again.  With global warming, inattention to loose nukes, and the deliberate spawning of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, they may have even sewn the seeds of destruction of our whole species.

      How did they stay in power while spawning such evil and fomenting so many disasters?

      Analytically, Reagan could not think his way out of a paper bag.  But he could tell a good story, with just the right tone of confident self-righteousness.  He told whopper after whopper that flew in the face of elementary reasoning and cold hard facts.

      In the hand-off to Bush/Atwater, to Gingrich, and then to Cheney/Rove, they've only gotten better at spinning the myths that confuse and immobilize enough of our citizens that we collectively only shuffle our feet -- and maybe squint, uncertainly, at the fire extinguisher -- as our house burns down around us.

      Why are Americans so susceptible to myths that cannot hold up to elementary scrutiny (from the Laffer curve to the creeping menace of homosexuality to "Saddam was responsible for 9/11")?  Why are Americans so easily duped by confidence men and liars?

      Well, where are Americans trained to believe in mythology?  To turn their rational faculties off and trust in their leaders, and maybe "divine providence"?  Where are our best breeding grounds of confidence men (paging Jim Bakker, Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberson -- oh, and love the new protein shakes, Pat)?  Where are Americans exposed to confusing, contradictory stories that sound eloquent, but don't really make sense most of the time, or hold together one to another?  And when the stories don't quite make sense, where are Americans told not to worry their little heads -- that "faith" and being American is all that matters, anyway?

      Religion and religious institutions train people to turn off the critical faculties required for democracy to function and, at the same time, organize the most ignorant among us into potent political forces.

      There is a quote from a book called "Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk" by Peter Bernstein that I found quite insightful (if somewhat over-stated) when I read it:

      "The revolutionary idea that defines the boundary between modern times and the past is the mastery of risk: The notion that the future is more than a whim of the gods and that men and women are not passive bfore nature.  Until human beings discovered a way across the boundary, the future was a mirror of the past or the murky domain of oracles and soothsayers who held a monopoly over knowledge of anticipated events."

      Of course it is more than "risk" -- it is the confluence of a set of "Enlightenment" concepts about how the universe works and what humanity's place in it might be that defined the boundary.

      The religious devout have not crossed that boundary, themselves, and want to pull everyone else back across to their dimly-lit backward side.

      But hey, defenders of religion say -- that is only the nuts.  Look at all the good things religion has done?

      In my view, the "good" done by religion is the result of the accumulation of power through fear (believe in [insert favorite deity here] or you will cease to exist after death or, worse, burn in hell forever) and confusion (as [favorite deity] makes clear in [favorite religious tract] all [insert concept or group of people here] is EVIL) that just happened to result in the use of said power in constructive ways by a few enlightened leaders.

      One certainly cannot argue that the [insert favorite religious tract here] provides an unambiguous -- or even useful -- roadmap for organizing around good and vanquishing evil.

      Religion as a tool for good is like alcohol as a tool for happiness.  In moderation it sometimes leads to pleasant outcomes, but there is often an unattractive hangover, and too much of it can readily destroy the lives of the imbibers and those around them.

      Disagree?  I read just this morning something that might offer a useful exercise: consider some excerpts from a review of some recent books on Joseph Smith, the father of Mormonism, by Larry McMurtry (of Lonesome Dove, All the Pretty Horses, etc. fame)

      ...Perhaps in 1844 no man did know Joseph Smith's history, but since then at least eighteen biographers and commentators of various weights in their hundreds have probed that history.

      Whether anyone ever knew his heart is harder to judge. Certainly Emma, his devoted and intelligent wife, believed she did until, after sticking by him through much hardship, the Prophet hurt her terribly by proclaiming and practicing plural marriage. He insisted (what prophet wouldn't?) that his plural marriages were neither adulterous nor bigamous. He, the Prophet Joseph Smith, was directly ordered by God to take to wife certain women, even though (as was often the case) the woman was already married to another man.

      Emma Smith hated this. She threw out a couple of wives, held her tongue in public, and even bore Joseph a final son, born some months after the Prophet's death. But when, some years later, Emma remarried, it was not to a Mormon.

      How many of these ordered-by-God wives Joseph Smith married is constantly being recalibrated. Fawn Brodie, in an appendix to No Man Knows My History, lists forty-eight wives, many of which have since been discounted. In the book's second edition (1971) she suggests that the number may be as high as eighty-four. Professor Bushman considers that extravagant. He thinks a modest count of between twenty-eight and thirty-three is more like it. To a bachelor such as myself, that still seems like quite a lot of wives.

      Getting more to the core of Mormonism:

      Later, Joseph remembered that Jesus Christ, too, had happened to appear with his Father. In time Joseph Smith came to believe that he was the direct mouthpiece of God. In his years as leader of the Mormon Church he often claimed to receive revelations directly from God. He sometimes described himself as the "revelator."

      ...On September 21, 1823, an angel appeared to him; the angel wore "robes of most exquisite whiteness" and introduced himself as Moroni; he was the son of Mormon, a hero figure in the Book of Mormon. The angel informed Joseph that he had been chosen to translate a holy book written on golden plates; the book was about some of the earlier inhabitants of the continent, i.e., the Native Americans possibly?

      The angel took Joseph several times to a hill now called Cumorah. (Professor Bushman says the hill Cumorah is just off the road between Palmyra and Canandaigua, New York.) In time Joseph was shown the tablets; the angel made it clear that the Lord expected Joseph to get busy and translate them.

      Somehow, by about 1827, these plates, covered with diverse and curious characters, were transported to the Smith household, where they seem to have been kept either in a box or under the table or plunked on the table and covered with a cloth. Joseph Smith was very loath to let anyone, including his wife, Emma, see the plates. Nearly a dozen men, some of them Joseph's scribes, claimed to have seen the plates, but their claims inspire no confidence. It's not really clear that anyone except Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni really saw the plates, if there were plates--a big if.

      The principal scribes who took Joseph's dictation were Emma Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris; what occurred at the Smith table was surely one of the most peculiar acts of translation in the annals of language. Joseph Smith, let us remember, had at most two years of schooling. His wife Emma considered him something of an ignoramus; he could not, she admitted, write a coherent letter. The figures on the plates, according to a linguist named Charles Anthon, then of Columbia College, contained traces of Egyptian, Chaldean, Assyriac, Greek, and Arabic, with perhaps a figure or two from the Mayan zodiac.

      Anthon, of course, was not allowed to see the plates, only copies of the various characters supplied by Joseph Smith. When informed by Martin Harris that an angel had revealed the plates, Anthon tore up the description he had prepared. (More recently, Harold Bloom, too, balked at the angel, though a survey taken this very month in a Mormon charter school in Tucson, Arizona, finds that 80 percent of the high school students happily believe that angels are somewhere about.)

      Joseph Smith possessed two seer stories or peep stones (crystals?), Urim and Thummin; these he placed in his hat, which sat on the table in front of him. Peering through these peep stones (and the hat) he poured out rapid dictation, welding most of the languages of the ancient world into a quasi-biblical English. By this odd method the Book of Mormon got written--not the least of its problems is that the locution "And it came to pass," with variants, is used more than a thousand times, giving the whole text a stuttery feel. Was the young prophet channeling, à la Shirley MacLaine and Guru Ma, or was he pouring out fiction at the speed of Jack Kerouac?

      I know what I would conclude (and, personally, I have no patience for Kerouac, either).  The review itself is quite interesting (we need Romney to get the Republican nomination -- it will set off the religious right in a gyroscopic tizzy that will be fearsome to behold -- but I digress), but is unfortunately behind a subscription wall.

      Mormonism is now the faith of 12-million people, and is the fastest growing "diaspora" in the world, thanks to aggressive missionaries.  Those in the US who follow the faith are tightly organized, vote overwhelmingly Republican, and broadly endorse a Christian Taliban agenda that is destroying our country.

      So should one be "religiously tolerant"?  Or should one marvel at how anyone could possibly believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet -- particularly as a core pillar of their identity?  Should one respect their religion, or recognize it as a core driver mis-educating Mormons and pulling them off the rational plane -- and thereby making them dangerous?  

      Or maybe one should, instead, ask Mormons to believe, but not, you know, really believe (wink, wink), like most of our leaders since the founding fathers?

      How about recognizing all religion as derivative mythology and stepping up to the challenges of modernity with courage, open eyes, and the understanding that no one is going to save us but ourselves?

      •  Thanks you!!! (none)
        I could not have said it any better!!!!
        •  Said what any better? (none)
          The diarist has at least 12 things

          I'm with the diarist at the beginning and the end...


          "the fools, the fools, they've left us our Fenian Dead" (Padraig Pearse - Gay Revolutionary)

          by padraig pearse on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 03:06:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What? (none)
            I'm a little confused here. I have re-read this thread three times and can't understand what you are talking about. My comment was simply an agreement on Minerva's comment and had nothing directly to do with the original diary or for that matter you.
      •  Derivative Mythology (none)
        This is a remarkably intelligent statement!

        How about recognizing all religion as derivative mythology and stepping up to the challenges of modernity with courage, open eyes, and the understanding that no one is going to save us but ourselves?

        You refuse to fall into the rhetorical trap presented by most debate about religion in modern life and, instead, sidestep the false arguments regarding church and state and cut DIRECTLY to the real issues, which are ones of personal responsibility and survival of the species.

        Good for you!

        •  For fuck's sake (none)
          Isn't that what we all did 100 years ago?

          Why are refighting these battles?

          I read these last few comments like some amber-encrusted memory

          This is a remarkably intelligent statement!

              How about recognizing all religion as derivative mythology and stepping up to the challenges of modernity with courage, open eyes, and the understanding that no one is going to save us but ourselves?

          You refuse to fall into the rhetorical trap presented by most debate about religion in modern life and, instead, sidestep the false arguments regarding church and state and cut DIRECTLY to the real issues, which are ones of personal responsibility and survival of the species.

          Good for you!

          "the fools, the fools, they've left us our Fenian Dead" (Padraig Pearse - Gay Revolutionary)

          by padraig pearse on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 03:11:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  that is so fucking 1930s....n/t (none)
            don't you even see that???

            we haven't progressed an inch

            still given the same tormented answers to the same ill-conceived questions

            "the fools, the fools, they've left us our Fenian Dead" (Padraig Pearse - Gay Revolutionary)

            by padraig pearse on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:09:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ha! (none)
              Yes, the question (and the answer) are fin de siecle.

              Yet there seems to be some miasma of collective amnesia operating hereabouts and everywhere and, so, the same questions and arguments are being asked and posed and, so, must be answered and debated.

              We are, after all, only animals at the bottom of it.

              To say simply that we all malfunction is not to get on with it.

      •  As far as I'm concerned, read no further ... (none)
        Hey, 400+ comments on this thread is wonderful, but it can be time consuming. So save yourself some time, and just give props to Minerva (great userid there, btw).

        Grok Your World

        grok: to understand something in a deep and empathic way

        by Grok Your World on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:57:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Mark Twain (none)
        did call the book of mormon "chloroform in print"

        That about says it all for me.  

        God would not write something that boring.

        Our virtues are usually only our vices in disguise. La Rochefoucauld

        by Parmenides on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 11:12:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sheesh (none)
        I guess your a Humanist.

        The main problem with some religions is fundamentalism. Christainity, Islam, and Judaism have fallen prey to this.

        A second problem is the confusion among believers. To me, each religion is a spiritual method to find spiritual truths much like the scientific method. Believers confuse the method with the results so their conclusions are mixed, odd, and potentially dangerous.

        Nothing wrong with any faith, just the faithful.

        •  Being a Humanist (none)
          Is not a reason to hand out a troll-rating. Learn what the ratings are for before you start applying them, as you clearly have no idea.

          Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

          Feingold for President

          by Goldfish on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:32:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I agree and disagree (none)
        I think that, in stating religion, meaning an umbrella of all religions, is too broad and generalizing.  I need go only to some wonderful works of the Dalai Lama for the basis of my argument.

        "There must be some way out of here, said the Joker to the Thief" -Bob Dylan is my god

        by Jeffersonian Democrat on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:39:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  SO (none)
          should we mock Mormanism and respect Islam?

          Hmmm - the Mormans gave us that boy choir but those Arabs gave us Rumi and Sufism.

          Oddly enough, I think when weighing out the relative stupity of religions, I give culture and tradition a bit of weight.  (But hey I'm a Catholic)

          So, half-assed, angel MORONic faiths like Mormonism and Rapture fundies are just jokes.

          Guess what - there are NO later day saints - and even fewer Christian Scientists (A latter day oxymoron, right?)

          (Anybody willing should read Wise Blood - the greatest American novel since dos Passos USA Trilogy)

          "the fools, the fools, they've left us our Fenian Dead" (Padraig Pearse - Gay Revolutionary)

          by padraig pearse on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 03:21:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, absolutely not (none)
            I guess my point is to look at specifics individually rather than using a broad generalization.  If I gave a paper to colleagues at a conference and made such claims, it would severely damage my career as an academic.  Therefore I brought up the example of the Dalai Lama.  Here is a man (and his followers) who seemingly lost everything and yet still takes refuge in his beliefs which a wholly peaceful and non-violent.  I think that is an example of religion being used for good.

            "There must be some way out of here, said the Joker to the Thief" -Bob Dylan is my god

            by Jeffersonian Democrat on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 03:37:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  God, everyone loves the Dali Lama... (none)
              And, hey, so do I.

              He was the most charismatic man I'd ever met - well, one of them - but so uplifting - in a way that - well,

              Hmmmmm - I'd stone Brigham Young BUT not Rinpoche


              Why isn't safe to make fun of America's absurd religious cults?

              Mormanism is a complete joke - it's like the Ron L Hubbard of the 1840s - with a bit of white supremicist "we're all children of the chosen people" mumbo-jumbo.

              Come on.  If they didn't put so much time into the former Hughes Electronic (now a part of Murdoch's empire) do you think anybody in their right fucking mind would give two hoots about the idiotic, copy-cat, adventurer brothers from upstate new York?

              Not far from where the Fox family discovered (invented? patented?) spiritualism.

              Let's not even talk about the risible pretensions of the Jehovah Witnesses.

              America is not a nation of Christians - it's a fucking nation of snake oil merchants - for whom the afternoon astrology column carries equal weight with Revelations.

              Our religious freedom has turned us into a nation brainwashed lunatics  - and much to the dismay of all die-hard Jeffersonians, reason does not appear to win the final round.

              "the fools, the fools, they've left us our Fenian Dead" (Padraig Pearse - Gay Revolutionary)

              by padraig pearse on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:01:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think we are in disagreement (none)
                One of the things I enjoy about Buddhism is it's acceptance of science and reason and especially that everyone is responcible for their own actions and have the power to change themselves and their environment through love and compassion without judging others.  Hell, the DL himself wrote that he learns from other religious leaders and considers their beliefs.  I only wish that attitude would be held by fundamentalists of any religion.  It just seemed the above post was making generalities, which have their grain of truth, to all religions and I have a problem with totalities and absolutes.  In my area of learning, German Literature, the totalities and absolutes of the philosophy of German Idealism from the Enlightenment lead directly to the absolutism of Nazi Germany.  Check out Hanna Arendt's "The Origins of Totalitarianism"

                I agree with you about snake-oil salesmen, Steve Martin was one of the best.  Oh, and I do enjoy Dos Passos as well.

                "There must be some way out of here, said the Joker to the Thief" -Bob Dylan is my god

                by Jeffersonian Democrat on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:24:41 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  I wrote that diary (1.75)
    And it had valid points based on past events, about a million of them done. They were done in the name of religion that resulted in the oppression and deaths of millions of people.  
    •  But of course (4.00)
      You could put the name of almost any faith or ideology in there.  Take your pick.  Christianity's killed and oppressed many times that number.  Atheism's got a shorter history, but it's racked up quite a record between the USSR and China.  But of course, there have been sterling examples of heroism and tolerance in each of those faiths too.  Singling out one group and calling it particularly regressive or evil just plays into Fox News spin, and I don't think it has any place on a liberal site.  I've liked your writings in other places, bassman, which is why I'm so disappointed here.  I really urge you to delete that diary.

      "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

      by ChicagoDem on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:05:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just posted on anti-Muslim bias (4.00)
        Thanks for putting this post up. I just did a long diary on a Tribune staffer's experience in being accused of wanting to blow up an Amtrak train during his vacation, and the fear, the divide-and-conquer mentality behind scrapegoating.

        " When the best rulers achieve their purpose Their subjects claim the achievement as their own." - Tao Te Ching

        by ravenastro on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:30:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's an important diary (4.00)
          I've had something similar happen to me, even though I'm not Muslim.  I hope everyone reads it and realizes the level of racism in this country that many people don't even consider when they decide to spout off anti-Muslim talking points.

          "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

          by ChicagoDem on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:48:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  your rosy view of islam (2.80)
        is seriously inaccurate

        the african end of the slave trade was largely run by muslims, and, in fact, it continues to this day

        the great islamic expansion itself was a colonial project of empire

        your attempt to portray islam as the great defender of freedoms and liberty against the rapacious christians when its adherents exhibited the same warlike and degenerate qualities is rather silly, imo.

        I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

        by The Exalted on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:51:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  well (4.00)
          you are both guilty of reductions and errors.  The characterization that the diarist makes of Islam at the time of the crusades is pretty well accepted.  But Islam at that time was itself threatened by Central Asian tribes who were ostensibly Muslim, but not nearly as civilized as those native to the Levant, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Persia.  Even though this was the case, by most measures the West was a barbarous backwater and nearly all parties in the Near East thought so - at the time of the Crusades.    
          On the other hand, Jerusalem was never taken from Saladin.  the first crusade captured Jerusalem in 1099, and Saladin lived from c1137-1193.  He recaptured Jerusalem from the crusaders in 1187.

          Exalted, It would seem to me that by your logic, it is not permissible to say anything positive about the United States and our country's historic support of freedom and liberty, given our own history of slave-trading and colonialism.  The barbarous crusaders vs. civlized Muslims is a theme in even basic history books, so I don't fault the diarist for using it.
          I also may be overstating your position. (and at the moment I can't go back to look over the diary again or I will lose all of what I just wrote here.) I will agree that it is silly to portray Islam as the defender of 'freedom and liberty' against the rapacious Christians, because those are modern concepts that are completely meaningless in the Medieval context.  But to portray Islam as the defenders of civilization against Frankish barabarism is not only what contemporaries did, but what historians have been doing ever since.    

          privatization is the opposite of democracy. Schadenfreude ist die schönste Freude (denn sie kommt von Herzen).

          by Ianua Ditis on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:48:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  i took particular offense (none)
            to the diarists' assertion that islam was responsible for ending the slave trade in all areas it reached, when in fact it was executed and maintained by muslims, to this day

            as a whole, the medieval islamic states were considerably more civilized and tolerant than the europeans, yes, but that does not transform the history of islam into the munificent fantasy painted by the diarist

            I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

            by The Exalted on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:14:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Lots of Euro-centrism on both sides here... (none)
            ... while not defending the original diary, I find it very telling that there has been no mention whatever of the way in which hundreds of millions of south-east Asian Buddhists were 'converted by the sword' to Islam over a 500-year period roughly following the Crusades and leading up to the US Civil war [just to give everyone a nice euro-centric timeframe.] Many, many millions killed, including the largely pacifist monks and nuns in what was largely a monastic religious culture. And while at least a majority of "sane" Christian scholars and authorities will condemn the Crusades and the Inquisition as deplorable historic events, the mass-killing and near genocide of peoples ranging from Afghanistan to Sri Lanka in order to 'convert them to the true faith of Allah' is still regarded as one of the high points in the 'flowering of Islam.'

            While the need to encorage more tolerance and realistic understanding of the diversity of Islam is legit, the various posts of the 'poor, mis-understood Islam' variety show a pretty poor grasp of history outside of the "White west."  I'll assume this is out of ignorance rather than a purposful ommission on anyone's part.

            Those who fail to learn from history...are invited to submit an application for a position in the Bush administration.

            by Timoteo on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:09:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  For those who want to understand Islam... (none)
          For those who want to understand Islam and other religions, I recommend:

          Islam: Empire of Faith, An Empires Special

          The World's Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions

          Both of these were produced prior to the George W. Bush administration seizing power and the rise of hate radio.


        •  Look: (none)
          Are you suggesting that Muslims are worse than other religions in this regard?

          We are all equals in this world. But people each have differing interests and thus fall into conflict. It doesn't matter what religion you follow; what matters is how well people are able to see other people as equals. Thus singling out Islam like the diarist did, and your defense of it are totally uncalled for.

          •  perhaps if you cared to actually read (none)
            what i write, rather than hand out 1's, you would note:

            when its adherents exhibited the same warlike and degenerate qualities

            note the word "same," this does not connote "worse," but in fact it connotes "same."

            i'm defending singling out islam? where, pray tell, in my comment do you see that? i'm objecting to the singling out of islam as the world's great protector, when in fact it enjoys a history just as bloodsoaked and sordid as christianity.

            I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

            by The Exalted on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:49:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  My point (none)
          Is that there is good and evil in every faith.  That's why it's stupid to generalize about whole theologies.  And you're right that there are serious, negative things that Islam has abetted.  I wouldn't argue that.

          Arab traders perpetuated human slavery in much of Africa.  But they often-- not always-- curbed some of its sexual features.  Perhaps it's cold comfort, but it's a positive aspect.

          Again, I'm a Hindu.  My ancestors were conquered and subjugated by Muslim invaders for centuries-- some worse than others.  I know that there's a long and bloody past there.  But is it longer or bloodier than any other faith?  Is it so bad that we should be treating Muslims like second class citizens today?  I would certainly disagree with that.

          "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

          by ChicagoDem on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:01:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  obviously we should not treat (none)
            anyone as second class, in any regard

            i just objected to your characterization of the religion as a general bulwark to christianity

            I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

            by The Exalted on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:44:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Precisely. (4.00)
        I posted this comment on the diary this diary is in response to, and I will post it again here.  There, I gave it the subject line "It's not Islamic fundamentalism..."

        It's fundamentalism, period, Islamic, Judaic, Christian, Sikh, Zoroastrian, Unitarian, or Flying Spaghetti Monster.

        Anyone who thinks that s/he and her/his associates are the only people who understand what his/her particular god(s) dictate for humanity and that s/he has the right to impose those dictates on anyone and everyone else is dangerous.  If one gets one's ideas from a noncorporeal being whom society hasn't seen fit to characterize as a "god," we label the person psychotic rather than religious.  We say that the person is seeing/hearing things.

        It has nothing to do with the character or content of one's beliefs.  It is the idea that one's sect and one's sect alone understands what is the right thing to do and that this understanding grants the sect the right to command everyone else that is dangerous.

        As far as I can discern, this phenomenon occurs and reoccurs with varying strength and varying content across all periods of human history and across all cultures.  Nothing good has ever come of it.

        The Chimperor Has No Clothes

        by DC Pol Sci on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:57:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  i'd say Totalitarianism (none)
        maybe, not  'true' atheism... (yes, we have orthadoxy too!!)

        more a 'worship of state and leader' in the case of china and ussr... hmmm, sound familiar?

        but i quibble...

        great diary!

        (-6.88, -8.31)-- "fuck your war... and your president."--Snake Plissken

        by binFranklin on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:19:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's more than a quibble... (none)
          Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. killed millions in the name of totalitarian ideology, but atheism per se had little if anything to do with it.

          You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on. -- George W. Bush

          by KTinOhio on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:41:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well that's the issue, isn't it? (none)
            My argument is that most of the things attributed as terrible examples of Muslim "backwardness" are best understood in their political, rather than religious, context.  The power given to people like bin Laden is more due an ethnic frustration with Western power and values than any specific religious value.  It's much easier to separate beliefs about religion (including atheism) from politics when we're dealing with a belief we like.

            "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

            by ChicagoDem on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:06:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Oh Please (none)
        "atheism" ????

        "Atheism's got a shorter history, but it's racked up quite a record between the USSR and China."

        Oh, sorry, I must have missed the circular for the next "Atheistic" holiday cruise.

        Maybe all the "atheists" could get together and have a national holiday - like Christmas - and, hey, they could call it XMAS - which is like XXXmas - which is like all atheists are pornographers and Christ killers.

        If you meant to say Marxist-Leninist, or, scientific  socialists, then that's what you should say.

        To imply that any free-thinker who dosn't buy the mytho-madness of orthodox religion is a cut-out "Communist" is just outrageous.

        Re-think and re-write your comment.  You're smart and I'm sure you were just short cutting.

        Reason has never been this country's enemy.

        "the fools, the fools, they've left us our Fenian Dead" (Padraig Pearse - Gay Revolutionary)

        by padraig pearse on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 03:38:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  far more oppression and death from Xianity (4.00)
      including the internecine wars among Christians

      Your diary was an atrocity, and I do not use that word lightly.  You clearly know little either about the history of Islam or of the current distribution of Muslims in the current world.  You might be surprised to know that of the 10 countries with the largest Muslim populations, only one -  Egypt - is Arab, and that for most their forms of Islam are quite moderate, even as extremists have moved around the world, financed often by Arab (Saudi) money that comes from those in the oil industry in bed with such interests.

      And in our own country we have seen so-called Christians who have blown up clinics, killed doctors, advocated assassianting foreign leaders and denying Constitutional and baisc human rights to people who disagree with their agenda.

      Far more people have been killed in the name of Christianity than in the name of Islam.

      And if you want to call Muhammed a war-lord (which is in fact NOT an accurate description), what then do yo9u with "saints" such at Louis in France or Dmitry Donskoi in Russia?

      To put it simply, yours was an ignorant diary.  I chose not to respond their, but since you insist on perpetuating your intolerance, I have chosen to respond here.

      Flame away all you want.  Frankly I have no regard for anything you may have to say on the subject.

      Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH!

      by teacherken on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:11:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Listen (2.00)
        We can argue all day about which religion has killed more people, you only further emphasizing the whole point.  People attack fund. Christianity on here all the time but give fund. Muslims a free pass.  There just as bad.  If you want to argue that there are other factors at work in France than fine.  Some religions are more peaceful than others, some are more ignorant that others. True, it is all opinion and apparently I have a minority opinion but it needed to be voiced.
        •  But bassman (4.00)
          You're not drawing any distinction between "Muslims" and "fundamentalist Muslims".  That's what my problem with your post is, personally.  I think any violent fundamentalist needs to be accountable for what he says and does, whether his targets are women getting abortions or Israeli civilians.  But those are issues of secular politics, not of the underlying faith.

          "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

          by ChicagoDem on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:22:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  What a stupid thing to say (3.81)
          You're conflating two completely separate issues.  How are you so sure that the riots in Paris are due to fundamentalist Muslim beliefs?  Why are you so quick to dismiss the much more obvious scenario that this is most likely a case of an oppressed lower class reacting against a system that has been beating them down for 30 years?

          And if you really think that we have been giving fundamentalist Muslims a free pass why don't you just hop on over to some human rights websites and see all the stuff we were doing go focus attention on the Taliban (before the conservatives joined the bandwagon) and the Saudis?  Words, right now, cannot express how fucking angry people like you make me.  People like me have dedicated virtually their whole lives to putting our liberal beliefs into practise by fighting for the causes of social justice and non-violence all around the world in any way we can and THIS IS HOW YOU RECOGNISE THIS?!  

          Go to hell.

          •  Either there is a hell, and you just (none)
            called for sending someone to it, salsa0000, or there ain't. If there is, then you just said you wanted to see someone put in that retched place for all eternity (that's the way the rules work)for writing a single comment that doesn't really seem to call for the sending to hell of anyone. So let's hope there isn't one. And perhaps you might consider how much that statement was like those that you oppose, actually, worse.

            My first "0". I feel so.... unworthy. - JW -

            by John West on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:48:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'll defend salsa0000 (none)
              She has spent much time approaching fundamentalism and oppression in a much more careful and intelligent way than my 15min diary.  And she is afraid that her efforts and many others will get hijacked by more extremists views like mine.  I don't take offense by her comments though because their is no hell and if there was I would never worship an asshole who would send someone there out of spite becuase someone didn't live in his/her teachings.  
            •  It's a metaphorical hell (4.00)
              Look the reason this kind of thing really annoys a guy like me about this kind of broad-brush comment is that I expect it from the forces we are arrayed against, not ones that we are fighting with.  There is definitely a fringe left group that makes all manner of excuses for Islamic terror groups, and I worry about their ilk every day because they lead to spurious accusations like the one the left is being dealt with commentary like the one bassman is making.  That kind of 'soft on Islamic fundamentalism' accusation is not one that I've never heard before - I've heard from an array of people who've come and spoken here on campus and on television but the names are not ones that bassman should like to be associated: David Horowitz, Ann Coulter, etc.

              And notice I am completely leaving alone the substantive point on the original topic: whether it is even appropriate to cast aspersions on one-sixth of humanity (which is what Islam represents) based on the actions of a bunch of violent youths.  That kind of gross abuse of the broad brush has yet to be apologised for as far as I know.

          •  How is he so sure? (none)
            Well, the newspapers I am reading say this has nothing to do with Islam or fundamentalism.  So, the answer is: he's making it up.
          •  You know how it goes............. (none)
            ....its a class war marketed as a race/religious war. Of course its about unemployment and lack of opportunity and just upset people in general. They aren't doing it in the name of their religion....I think they are doing it because they are hungry.

            "Check da heads Bow in VIETNOW!!!

            by Diggla on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:59:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  for the record... (4.00)
          ...i'm giving bassman some fours because troll-rating some of his comments cannot be seen as anything other than ratings abuse.  this comment in particular is acceptable by any standards, and the debate that follows from it is worth having.

          Blogs will matter when we act locally: Local Diaries on Daily Kos.

          by miholo on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:40:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Listen: (none)
          Fundamentalism does not mean a thing. I have no idea what you are talking about. Fundamentalism can mean a million different things to a million different people. Therefore, whatever you are trying to say is totally meaningless.
      •  when you say (none)
        "far more people have been killed the name of christianity than islam"

        what is your source?

        I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

        by The Exalted on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:57:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the western hemisphere (none)

          (-6.88, -8.31)-- "fuck your war... and your president."--Snake Plissken

          by binFranklin on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:22:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  again, no source, just blanket assertion (none)

            I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

            by The Exalted on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:46:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  google it (none)

              (-6.88, -8.31)-- "fuck your war... and your president."--Snake Plissken

              by binFranklin on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:52:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  i'm being serious (none)
                before you and others make comments like that, provide some evidentiary backing

                I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

                by The Exalted on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:53:48 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  so am i (none)
                  who lived here before you?

                  where did they go?

                  and again, i didn't even mention The Holocaust.

                  or the inquisition.

                  (-6.88, -8.31)-- "fuck your war... and your president."--Snake Plissken

                  by binFranklin on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:00:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  eh (none)
                    the holocaust had nothing to do with christianity, the nazis were pagans murderously opposed to jews ( and slavs and others) not for their religion but their supposed ethnicity

                    99% of the casualties suffered by the native americans came from disease spread by the europeans

                    the inquisition, yes, but what were the numbers? how do they compare to wars of islamic conquest?

                    not so elementary a claim as you make it out to be

                    I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

                    by The Exalted on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:09:00 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  why was it able to happen? (4.00)
                      the jews had been demonized for centuries.

                      but i think your mind is made up, and i don't think a scorecard is going to change your opinion.

                      the point was all religions have their assholes...
                      i'm sorry if it's too many too many to count.

                      i gotta go get a life now.

                      (-6.88, -8.31)-- "fuck your war... and your president."--Snake Plissken

                      by binFranklin on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:46:39 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  History is Strange (none)
                        For a long period of history while European Christians were persecuting Jews, Jews lived peacefully side by side in a minority in many Muslim states.
                      •  insofar (none)
                        as all religions have their degenerates, yes, of course

                        but my point was to challenge the thesis that christianity has resulted in far more deaths than any other religion

                        this could be true, maybe is likely true, but it would be nice to see a real statistical analysis rather than empty assertions nodded at approvingly in the echo chamber

                        I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

                        by The Exalted on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:40:44 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Let me get this straight... (none)
                      When a predominantly Christian country commits atrocities, then those atrocities have nothing to do with religion, and are attributed to other social and political factors.

                      But when historical atrocities are commited by predominantly Muslim nations, the atrocities are always directly attributable to the very fact that they are Muslim.

                      I find your comments inconsistent and bigotted. Your double standard is showing.

                    •  The Nazi's where not pagans (4.00)
                      Granted they were shitty Christians (and I would posit most of them merely paid lip-service to it to sway public support within Germany to their side) but the reality is that most Nazi's where christian and even Hitler himself tired to use the RCC to legitimate his regime and wrap Christianity around it.


                      Mitch Gore

                      Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                      by Lestatdelc on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:59:40 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  nazis were pagans (none)
                        they tried to co-opt the church, like all other important institutions, sure.

                        but they were pagans through and through.

                        I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

                        by The Exalted on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:36:46 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Bullshit (none)
                          The majority of Nazi's were in the church in their communities. Yes they tried to further legitimize their movement in the public's eyes by getting the imprature of the RCC, etc. but stop desperately trying to separate the Nazi's from Christian churchs as it is not accurate.


                          Mitch Gore

                          Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                          by Lestatdelc on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:54:10 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  desperately? (none)
                            its established, undisputed fact

                            the nazi leadership, the nazi ideology, the nazi forms, nazi aspirations, they are all pagan

                            check out the SS cult and tell me that is not pagan

                            everyday germans were christians, but we're not talking about everyday germans, now are we

                            I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

                            by The Exalted on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:07:36 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wrong (none)
                            Yeah.. there were not any "everyday Germans" in the Nazi party. Get real. Talk about revisionism.


                            Mitch Gore

                            Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                            by Lestatdelc on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:45:42 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  the nazi party, i believe (none)
                            had a million members, out of what general population?

                            anyway, it doesn't matter what religion the members were, the party structure, ideology, leadership and aspirations were expressly pagan

                            combat this if you will

                            argue that christianity, or professed support of christianity, at all drove the nazis to their crimes. please, try, and fail.

                            I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

                            by The Exalted on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:06:25 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nice straw-man argument (none)
                            Never said that Christianity drove the Nazi's to commit crimes. Was countering the attempt to divorce members of the Nazi party from the church, which s simply not accurate.


                            Mitch Gore

                            Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                            by Lestatdelc on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:11:29 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  bah (none)
                            i made no strawman

                            the nazi party was not christian, this is not in dispute for those who know what they are talking about


                            I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

                            by The Exalted on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:11:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ciao (none)


                            Mitch Gore

                            Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                            by Lestatdelc on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:04:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

        •  I'll tell you: (none)
          The Holocaust
          The Crusades
          The Spanish Inquisition
          The Spanish extermination of the Aztecs and Incas
          Our subjugation of the Indians
          The French porgoms against the Hugenots

          See my point?

          To single out Islam because of the bad things Muslims have done ignores the fact that Western Christians have done the exact same thing. And that makes you a bigot and a hypocrite.

          •  eh, are you kidding (none)
            i'm not singling out islam

            i'm asking for real evidence backing up this numerical claim

            I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

            by The Exalted on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:37:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  For those who wish to blame the French riots... (4.00)
      ...on Islam, consider the following quote from tomorrow's NYT:

      Though a majority of the youths committing the acts are Muslim, and of African or North African origin, the mayhem has yet to take on any ideological or religious overtones. Youths in the neighborhoods say second-generation Portuguese immigrants and even some children of native French have taken part.

      In an effort to stop the attacks and distance them from Islam, France's most influential Islamic group issued a religious edict, or fatwa, on Sunday condemning the violence. "It is formally forbidden for any Muslim seeking divine grace and satisfaction to participate in any action that blindly hits private or public property or could constitute an attack on someone's life," the fatwa said, citing the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad.

      The Chimperor Has No Clothes

      by DC Pol Sci on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:33:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Disagree greatly (4.00)
      with your description of that diary as having valid points.  I found the diary shallowly written, and felt it painted millions of people with a broad brush set of accusations.  I am proud that I was the first poster to your diary with the worst recipe that I could figure out. If I could have rated the diary, I would have troll-rated you hoping it would disappear from existence.  Sadly, there has been too much discussion of your diary, too much credence given to it, and too many Kossacks writing words that I hope that they would regret.

      Again, I am proud that I got in the first post (and follow-up) and hope that every single person who goes to your diary sees these before seeing any of the comments that give your diary too much credit by conducting a serious dialogue under its umbrella.  So people don't need to go to your diary to see them, these were my posts:

      Sorry ... (4.00 / 14)

      but I don't have energy to do anything more than:

      Boil egg:

       Boil water
      Put in egg for 3.5 minutes

      by besieged by bush on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 03:58:03 PM PDT

      By the way ... (4.00 / 13)

      As a non-Muslim Kossack, I find the words / tone / views of this diary tasteless, inappropriately insensitive, shallowly thoughtless, religiously biased, and otherwise offensive.  

      by besieged by bush on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 04:53:30 PM PDT

  •  It's a kneejerk reaction (4.00)
    The Rethugs have hijacked Christianity in this country, and in so doing have sullied all religions. Just because we're all progressive here, doesn't mean we don't still have the same instinctive, bigoted reactions toward things that cause us pain.

    I'm a member of a religious minority too -- I'm Jewish -- and I've suffered more than most people at the hands of religious fundamentalists, including a couple of attempts by high school classmates to kill me and one attempt to burn down my home. To see my fellow progressives condemn such actions, only to see them follow that condemnation with a condemnation of my identity as a religious person, is shocking and appalling. I don't shove my religious ideology down their throats, and I'll be damned if I let them shove their atheism, agnosticism, or whatever else they believe down mine, any more than I would allow the Christofascist fundamentalists to impose their views. Anyone who would show that kind of intolerance doesn't understand the first thing about being progressive, and anyone who has a problem with my religiosity (or yours, or anyone else's, provided that they don't impose their views on others) can go Cheney themselves up the ass with a giant chainsaw.

    Thwarting the forces of conservatism since 1978.

    by wiscmass on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:02:03 PM PST

    •  There is no appeal to history. (3.00)
      It is all blood and hatred. Put it behind us.

      Where is the pure land? Look at the history of Scandinavia, of Scotland if you want to see blood.

      The riots in Alexandria over the nature of the trinity, whence the expression "an iota of difference." Literally, homoouson, the same nature, or homoiouson, a similar nature. An argument about the exact meaning of the trinity. Always the same. Blood and more blood. We put it behind us or we die.

      •  But it's not religion that's the problem! (3.00)
        In every one of those cases you cite, religion didn't cause the bloodshed. Religion never stood up and said, "I'm going to slaughter a bunch of people," and religion never killed anyone. People who sought to enhance their own social status, power, or wealth have always used religion for evil ends, and that's what happened in each of the cases you cite.

        On the other hand, what about people who use religion for good? What about Mother Teresa? Danny Siegel? The Dalai Lama? The billions of ordinary, everyday people who use religion to make their lives and the lives of their friends, neighbors, and communities better? If they "put it behind them," people die.

        Thwarting the forces of conservatism since 1978.

        by wiscmass on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:15:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I was unclear. (4.00)
          It is fanaticism that needs to be left behind. Certainty that one has all the answers. The fetishization of a particular belief. You cite the Dalai Lama, the closest I come to having a spiritual leader. He has not taken up violence, and he is on record as saying that if science and buddhism disagree, buddhism must accomodate itself to reality. He believes.knows, that he does not have all the answers. Peoples' allegiance to a particular concretized set of beliefs, their willingness to kill to convert, was very much the problem and still is. Land-grab and oil-grab and water-grab issues aside, what whipped people into the killing frenzy of the Iran-Iraq war? An appeal to overcome the other, those who don't believe properly.
          •  No it's (none)
            fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalism is a very big problem in all faiths. Fundamentalism believes that you don't have to obey the laws of the land. Many fundamentalists believe that God talks directly to them or they take a bible verse and twist it to mean what they want it to mean.

            People like Eric Rudolph would be an example of a christian fundamentalist. They are the closest equivalent to people like OBL.

            I'm too disgusted right now to think of a sig.

            by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:41:26 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Any disagreement you and I have (none)
              is at most semantic.
            •  fundamentalism (none)
              Please be careful with the broad brush painting. Fundamentalism comes in many shades and forms. For example, conservative Mennonites, society of friends (Quakers), Plymouth brethren, etc. are Christian fundamentalists AND practice leftish social concern. Many, like myself, are horrified by the tactics (antics?) of other conservatives.
                 Also note that Mennonites historically have taken stands in opposition to war, most forms of violence, and have suffered at the hands of other fundamentalist groups.
              •  yeah, i gotta go with (none)

                shoes for industry! shoes for the dead! shoes for industry! hi. i'm joe beets...

                by skippy on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:08:22 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  You (none)
                and I must have different understanding of religious fundamentalists. I don't consider quakers religious fundamentalists.

                I'm too disgusted right now to think of a sig.

                by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 03:57:20 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  In my mind (none)
                  the society of friends comes in a variety of flavors (as do other denominations)-- some more liberal, some more conservative; some more doctrinaire than others. For example, the branch of evangelical friends are quite doctrinaire, espouse what they see as the "fundamentals" of Christianity based upon a fairly literalistic interpretation of the Bible. Yet maintain their committments to the "inner light" and are often pacifist like other Quakers.
        •  You are uninformed. (4.00)
          The mythology of the Jews and Christians (what they call the "Old Testament" actually includes several examples of where their god DIRECTED them to slaughter people.  This is pretty clear license to kill those who aren't like you.  Or, if you don't want to go that far, to hate them, discriminate against them, etc.

          The blood of the tortured. The skin of the privileged class. The blood of the ruling dynasties.

          by Dracowyrm on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:35:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Only (none)
            fundamentalists take it the way you mean it. You are taking bible verses literally and that is what the fundamentalists do-they find a bible verse to justify what they want to do.

            I'm too disgusted right now to think of a sig.

            by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:42:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'm plenty well-informed (none)
            I know my Bible pretty well, and I know all about those passages. I also know that most Jews and Christians don't blindly accept everything they read, and they certainly don't accept that everything written in the Bible should dictate exactly how they act today.

            I'll give you some examples:

            My little sister is probably the coolest person I'll ever meet. She's going to be 20 in December, and she's already fluent in Hebrew, Arabic, Russian, Japanese, Italian, French, Spanish, and German. She's a gifted athlete and is currently trying to decide if she wants to go to medical school or law school, while majoring in pre-med and pre-law at an Ivy League university, where she carries a 4.0 GPA. She volunteers most weekends at a homeless shelter, and I often think she's adopted because she is much better looking than anyone else in the family. If I took everything in the Bible as a literal command, how much should I ask for if I try to sell her into slavery? Do you really think I would do that?

            I went out last night with some friends, one of whom was wearing a wool coat and linen pants. Am I supposed to kill him now, as the Bible would command?

            What about all those Jews, myself included, who did any work on Saturday that fits any of the 39 categories prohibited on the Sabbath? Or the Christians who did any such work today? Am I obligated to commit this genocide myself, or can I ask the police to handle it for me? Do I need to kill myself? And if I do, is that an exception to the religious law banning suicide?

            Here in Wisconsin, lots of farmers grow more than one kind of crop in the same field. Once again, do I need to kill all of them myself, or can I count on Mike Johanns to take care of that for me?

            Are you starting to see how ridiculous an assertion it is to claim that people of faith take everything in the Bible as a literal command?

            Are there some who do? Absolutely. I call them fanatics, and I think they cause all the problems you're complaining about. But most religious people, at least in this country, are smart enough to recognize that there have been all kinds of horrible mistakes throughout religious history, and that what may have reflected society's best knowledge generations ago may be completely moronic today.

            Most of us live in the real world, and we don't see any contradiction between living our lives as realists and as religious people. And as long as we don't force our views on anyone and especially don't resort to violence to do so -- and condemn those who do just as vehemently as you do -- anyone who has a problem with that can go Cheney themselves.

            Thwarting the forces of conservatism since 1978.

            by wiscmass on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:54:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It would be helpful if you pointed out to folks (none)
              that there have been a few thousand years worth of hagling over exactly how the Old Testament, and in particular the 5 books of Moses, the Torah, should be interpreted, what rules/laws should apply and in what fashion. Duling commentaries go on for many volumes in the Talmud, the basis for modern Rabbinic interpretation of Jewish law.

              There is rather little room for literal interpretation of what's in the bible in modern Judiasm - and even so we still have our rightwing nutcases...

              Democracy is a contact sport...

              by jsmagid on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:26:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I can't argue with that! (none)
                Jewish scholarship is all about delving into the text in search of deeper meanings. It's universally accepted in Judaism that you can't take everything in the Torah literally. Rashi was writing about anthropomorphism in the Torah over 900 years ago.

                Thwarting the forces of conservatism since 1978.

                by wiscmass on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:45:56 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Good point. And (none)
                  it is also true that "literal interpretation" can mean different things to different people. In seminary, I was taught that literal merely meant the meaning a word, phrase, or passage had to the designated audience at the time. Thus figures of speech, idioms,jokes, myths, etc. were to be understood that way. It says little about how one goes about determining the applicability of the historical meaning for today.
            •  Again: you're MISSING THE POINT (none)
              The POINT is that the "holy book" EXPLICITLY ORDERS AND CELEBRATES behavior that is abhorrent!  Whatever rationalization has been done by some members of these cults in the intervening centuries has not ERASED the fact that these horrific behaviors are not only condoned, but ORDAINED by Yahweh the Sociopath.

              Since the Magical Book is not subject to editing, this leaves more enlightened thinkers in the position of doing logical backflips to try to reconciled their saner positions with the text of the warrior zealots who wrote the Old Testament.  Inherently, that's weak.

              The bottom line is that the book never says, "it is wrong to kill others because they look, act, or believe differently than you."  It never says "you have no right to direct the morals of others."  It never says "laugh at yourself, celebrate happiness and pleasure, and enjoy this life you are given."  Quite the contrary.  It says "follow this contradictory and often hypocritical list of rules, because I say so, and make anyone who doesn't believe in me change their mind or pay in blood."

              Again:  the cults of Yahweh are inherently, inextricably twisted and dark.  They should be abandoned.  All of them.

              The blood of the tortured. The skin of the privileged class. The blood of the ruling dynasties.

              by Dracowyrm on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:12:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, YOU are missing the point (none)
                If you're taking the text literally, you don't understand it. And the vast majority of us recognize that the "Magical Book" as you call it underwent extensive editing over the years before it was codified in print.

                As for the idea that:

                The bottom line is that the book never says, "it is wrong to kill others because they look, act, or believe differently than you."  It never says "you have no right to direct the morals of others."  It never says "laugh at yourself, celebrate happiness and pleasure, and enjoy this life you are given."  Quite the contrary.  It says "follow this contradictory and often hypocritical list of rules, because I say so, and make anyone who doesn't believe in me change their mind or pay in blood."

                I don't know why you're picking out only the worst of the verses. I recognize that there are verses that call for exactly what you claim on the surface, but again, you can't read the Bible literally if you really want to understand it! The Bible calls for the death penalty for all kinds of offenses we would consider normal behavior. But did you know that the ancient rabbis just couldn't bring themselves to carry it out? They thought that any court that sentenced even one person to death in any 70 year period was bloodthirsty! Contrast their behavior with that of the Christofascists who have taken over our government -- now tell me who is practicing a peaceful religion appropriately and who ignores the parts that are inconvenient for their agenda.

                You just don't get it. My religion is not at all about killing people for being different, or preaching morality to others, or following a confusing list of rules, our own fanatics' opinions to the contrary. Here's a story that illustrates what my religion is about, which I recounted in another diary yesterday:

                It seems that in the first century, there was a man who wanted to demonstrate how ridiculous Judaism was. To do so, he decided to embarrass the two leading rabbis of the time, Shammai and Hillel. The man approached Shammai first and asked him, "Teach me the entire Torah while I stand on one leg." Shmammai was incensed, understandably, and told the man that the Torah was so vast and intricate that his request was a terrible insult. The man, very self-satisfied, then approached Hillel and made the same request. Hillel's response?

                Love your neighbor as you love yourself. The rest is commentary. Now go and study.

                The man was so impressed, he converted to Judaism.

                That's all Judaism is: love your neighbor as you love yourself. Everything else really is commentary. And anyone who tells you otherwise either doesn't get it or is obfuscating.

                I'm sorry that you feel my religion is twisted. I'm sorry you don't understand what I and so many others see in it. Above all, I'm sorry that you will never understand that my progressive views -- my deeply held convictions favoring women's equality, civil rights, peace, charity, a strong system of public education, universal health care, and so many other views that I share with so many others who post here, probably including you -- are inexorably tied to my religious beliefs. I am not one of those assholes who hijacked a religion for cynical gain. I practice my religion the way it is supposed to be practiced -- with my friends, family, and community, and without shoving my beliefs down other people's throats.

                But I'll be damned if I'm going to sit down and shut up when someone tries to shove their religious (or anti-religious) beliefs down my throat. And this statement:

                Again:  the cults of Yahweh are inherently, inextricably twisted and dark.  They should be abandoned.  All of them.

                That statement is dangerously close to doing exactly what you complain about the religious fundies doing. You're free to hold your beliefs about your religion, and as long as you're tolerant of views other than your own, we can agree to disagree and get along just fine. But insult me by shoving your ideas down my throat, and you're no better than the Christofascists, and I'll tell you that you can go Cheney yourself up the ass with a chainsaw, just like I tell them on a regular basis.

                Thwarting the forces of conservatism since 1978.

                by wiscmass on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 11:21:38 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You go off the rails when you say... (none)
                  "If you're taking the text literally, you don't understand it."

                  On the face it, can't you see how preposterous this is?

                  How is a tiny child supposed to hear the text and understand that it's all some metaphor and isn't really telling her/him to smite the Infidels?

                  Look:  I know that most modern Yahwists have chosen to look at the Magical Book as metaphorical, because if taken literally, it's obviously wrong.  It's internally contradictory, appalling in some of what it encourages, and flies in the face of what we now know to be scientifically true.  

                  But that doesn't mean that the roots of the religion aren't still firmly planted in the aggressive, intolerant patriarchal militarism and exceptionalism of the Hebrews of millenia ago.  

                  Where in the Bible does it say, "Don't take any of this too seriously...and by the way, laugh at the priest for wearing a silly hat once in awhile.  Remember, he's just a guy"?

                  Where does it say, "Other people believe other stuff and that's okay.  Try to get along with them.  Remember, you're not any better than they are"?

                  The answer is:  it doesn't.  And there is no way that someone reading the Bible will get these messages unless they are trying so hard to do so that they force these principles between the lines.

                  Far better to abandon a structure built on a set of dark moral principles, and start over with something better.

                  Finally:  I'm not "shoving my thoughts down" your throat.  I'm expressing mine.  You don't have to like them, but I'll repeat:  the cults of Yahweh should, for the betterment of humanity, be abandoned, in my opinion.  I stand by that, and I'm confident I can come up with a far more compelling set of arguments for my position than you can for the contrary.  Sorry if it hits close to the bone, but if you choose to stand with something that has such a long, bloody history, them's the breaks.  

                  The blood of the tortured. The skin of the privileged class. The blood of the ruling dynasties.

                  by Dracowyrm on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 11:37:46 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Reasons for the 1, chicagovigilante? (none)
    •  tribalism and ideology (none)
      I'm an Anglican priest, and so I think about the purpose of religion a good deal.  One of its primary purposes is social control.  This is not in itself a sinister thing, since the absence of social control is social chaos.  Expectations with regard to behaviour are reinforced in a number of ways, and religion is just one.  But there are healthy ways that it can do this and unhealthy ones.

      Religion is useful and beneficial when it provides its believers with a metaphysical and ontological framework with which to do the difficult task of ethical decision-making.  For Christianity, that decision-making relies on the ethical "love commandment" of Jesus ("Love God with all your heart and all your soul...and your neighbour as yourself") and Paul's injunction to use one's rational faculty to understand the will of God, and then to test one's understanding by an appeal to conscience ("be transformed by the renewing of your that you may discern the will of God").

      Conscience is the boundary between primitive religious faith and the modern.  It is the genius of the Christian Church to have re-defined this faculty and to have centralised it as its conceptual talisman.  Ethical appeals from the early church fathers to modern-day televangelists have been directed at swaying this inner barometer.  Ethical ruling by fiat no longer works, rather, there is an at least implicit acknowledgement that people will reach their own judgements about what is "good and right and holy."

      To understand the background to the development of conscience, one first needs to understand the ethical function of religion.  From a social perspective, the main task of religion is the identification of a metaphysical reality, which is then used to define ontology.  This metaphysical and ontological framework thus directs and limits one's response to the phenomena of everyday life.  

      That response is inherently ethical, since it involves either comporting with the metaphysical reality's (i.e., "God's") ontological parameters or not.  God is thus the sine qua non of custom.  To oppose God's definition of being, much less God's metaphysical reality, is to oppose first principles.  Such opposition upends convention, and leads to conflict.

      The battle between fundamentalism and liberalism in religious movements is therefore a conflict about defining the ontological parameters established by God, between conscience and conformity.  But more importantly, it is a conflict about who gets to define conscience.  Religion falls into fundamentalism when it moves away from freedom of conscience and becomes an outlet for tribalism and social coercion.

      "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

      by fishhead on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:22:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Even moderate Muslims have recognized (1.87)
    that Islam, in its current form, leads to conflict.  

    There is no other religion that seems to conflict with every other religion every time they come into contact.

    In India with Hindus.
    In the Phillipines with Catholics.
    In Russia with Russian Orthodoxy.
    In the Middle East with Judaism.
    In Cyprus with Greek Orthodoxy.
    In Sudan with paganism and Christianity.
    In the US vs. a number of religions.  

    Or, right now, in France, with secularism.  

    Its a roll call of dishonor.  To ignore it, or treat each conflict as an isolated incident based on local factors, is burying your head in the sand.  

    Government should be limited not in size, Jon, but in effectiveness. In terms of effectiveness, this is the most limited administration we've ever had.

    by bosdcla14 on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:03:01 PM PST

    •  No, no, no, no, no! (4.00)
      Moderate Muslims have no problem with Hindus in India, Catholics in the Phillippines, Russian Orthodox Christians in Russia, Jews in the Middle East, Greek Orthodox Christians in Cyprus, pagans or Christians in Sudan, or secularists in France. But Islam has its fascist fanatics, just like Christianity does in the US. And just as the Christofascists in the Rethuglican party have hijacked Christianity and bastardized it into a form that promotes their own cynical ideals, the Islamofascists have similarly hijacked Islam for their own cynical ideals.

      Thwarting the forces of conservatism since 1978.

      by wiscmass on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:09:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  you're forgetting... (none)
        So moderate Muslims in India don't have any problem with the Hindu mobs that burn down mosques to build temples in their place?

        So moderate Muslims in the West Bank don't have the same problem that their secular or fundamentalist Muslim neighbours have with the Israeli army bullodzoing their houses?

        So Chechens, including many who are moderate Muslims, don't have problems with the Russian army, many of whom are Orthodox Christians?

        •  You're either intentionally misinterpreting... (4.00)
          ...what I wrote or being extremely sophomoric.

          Do they have a problem when someone attacks them? Sure, who wouldn't? But do they go around looking for fights with other religious groups (or as I put it above, do they have a problem with those groups)? No, only the extremists do that.

          Religion is not a weapon, it's a tool. And just like any tool, it can be used for good or for evil. Rather than condemning the tool, shouldn't we congratulate the people who use the tool for good and only condemn the people who use it for evil?

          Thwarting the forces of conservatism since 1978.

          by wiscmass on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:06:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  how about UNintentionally misinterpreting (none)
            You're either intentionally misinterpreting what I wrote or being extremely sophomoric.

            Can I plead guilty to the "misinterpreting" part without conceding the "intentionally" part?

            Specifically, I was skimming the thread a bit too fast, and got confused about who said what, and in my haste put you on the exact opposite side of what you actually were saying. I first read "X has no problem with Y" to mean "Y never did anything to hurt X". Anyway, my apologies for misreading, for posting too hastily, and my curses to nobody in particular for being unable to edit comments.

            •  Fair enough... (none)
              ...and I apologize for judging you too quickly. I'm obviously a little touchy about the topic, and I'm pissed off as hell at the assholes who claim to be progressive but condemn me just for being religious. That's not a good excuse for judging you so quickly, just an explanation.

              Thwarting the forces of conservatism since 1978.

              by wiscmass on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:50:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Islam's fanatics are or appear to be (2.14)
        1. More numerous
        2. More fanatical (Pat Robertson may fantasize about assassination, but I haven't seen any 700 Club viewers bomb a mosque)
        3. Given more excuses by the majority ("Of course 9/11 was wrong, but you have to understand that..."  No, I don't have to understand.  You have to understand that if you don't like America's policies, you protest, you stop trade, but you don't slaughter 3000 Americans).  

        Government should be limited not in size, Jon, but in effectiveness. In terms of effectiveness, this is the most limited administration we've ever had.

        by bosdcla14 on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:21:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Think of them like you would... (none)
          ...the Crusaders of about 1000 years ago. In many ways, the societies the Islamofascists come from resemble Christian Europe of that time. Just because the Islamofascists are more numerous, more fanatical, and given more excuses, doesn't make them the majority of Muslims. It just reflects the reality that the ruling class in many Muslim countries funds the terrorists in a cynical effort to deflect their attention from the injustices they inflict upon their people themselves.

          Thwarting the forces of conservatism since 1978.

          by wiscmass on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:26:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with all of that (2.16)
            You could say the place of the religions have been reversed---during the Crusades, it was Islam that was more forward-thinking and scientific than other religions.  Now, its the least.  

            Government should be limited not in size, Jon, but in effectiveness. In terms of effectiveness, this is the most limited administration we've ever had.

            by bosdcla14 on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:31:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Again, it's not the religion... (none)
    's the people who hijack the religion in the name of a cynical political agenda.

              Thwarting the forces of conservatism since 1978.

              by wiscmass on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:37:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, then there are a lot of hijackers (1.00)
                right now in the Islamic world.  And a lot more people who, while they disapprove in theory of the hijackers, find it understandable a lot in practice.    

                No double-meaning intended to 'hijackers'.  It was your word.    

                Government should be limited not in size, Jon, but in effectiveness. In terms of effectiveness, this is the most limited administration we've ever had.

                by bosdcla14 on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:48:16 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No double meaning taken (3.25)
                  But given the context, is it really so surprising that there are a lot of hijackers? There are over a billion Muslims in the world. Most of them live under repressive regimes that, as I already said elsewhere in this diary, fund the hijackers in a cynical effort to direct the terrorism away from their own corrupt actions. There are also over a billion Christians in the world, most of whom live in at least nominally free nations (e.g., the US).

                  Is there any doubt that there are tens of thousands of Christian hijackers in the US alone? And that's in a relatively free society that doesn't fund terrorism! Why, then, should anyone be surprised that there are even more Muslim hijackers coming out of oppressive societies that do?

                  Thwarting the forces of conservatism since 1978.

                  by wiscmass on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:00:21 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That is true (none)
                    After some thought, I don't have a counter.  

                    Government should be limited not in size, Jon, but in effectiveness. In terms of effectiveness, this is the most limited administration we've ever had.

                    by bosdcla14 on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:34:01 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  I was wondering when the troll-rating would start (none)
                  I know I've wandered off the reservation with these thoughts.  

                  Government should be limited not in size, Jon, but in effectiveness. In terms of effectiveness, this is the most limited administration we've ever had.

                  by bosdcla14 on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:00:56 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Tim McVeigh (2.00)

          Eric Rudolph?

          (-6.88, -8.31)-- "fuck your war... and your president."--Snake Plissken

          by binFranklin on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:27:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Was McVeigh motivated by twisted Christianity? (none)
            I've never read that---I'm not saying its not true, I've just never seen that.

            Even if he were, bin Laden has still done greater evil than McVeigh.  And, unlike McVeigh, found a large number of fellow travelers who agree with both his goals and his methods.  

            Government should be limited not in size, Jon, but in effectiveness. In terms of effectiveness, this is the most limited administration we've ever had.

            by bosdcla14 on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:33:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  it's called "Identity christianity" (none)
              and you're splitting hairs

              (-6.88, -8.31)-- "fuck your war... and your president."--Snake Plissken

              by binFranklin on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:39:43 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think so (none)
                I'm saying that guys like bin Laden are motivated by what they see as their religious calling.  And McVeigh was not.  

                Let's take Saddam.  I'm not going to lump Saddam's crimes into this debate, because although he is a Muslim, I see them as motivated by quest for personal power, not his religion.  

                I don't see that as hair-splitting at all.  Otherwise, you're arguing that every violent act committed is traceable back to the person's religion, even if its not what motivated them.  

                Government should be limited not in size, Jon, but in effectiveness. In terms of effectiveness, this is the most limited administration we've ever had.

                by bosdcla14 on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:43:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Tim McVeigh (none)
                  Totally motivated.
                  read up on the Turner Diaries and the murder of Alan Berg.

                  and i haven't even mentioned The Holocaust.

                  i did mention the western hemisphere tho.

                  (-6.88, -8.31)-- "fuck your war... and your president."--Snake Plissken

                  by binFranklin on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:48:46 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Good points (none)
                    I don't think the Nazis were motivated by Christianity (they went after the Churches---after all, Jesus was born Jewish, and hence he was inferior).  But it was definitely aided and abetted by Christianity, both in terms of people's personal prejudicies and institutional organizations like the Catholic Church.

                    So good points, which I had not thought of.  

                    Government should be limited not in size, Jon, but in effectiveness. In terms of effectiveness, this is the most limited administration we've ever had.

                    by bosdcla14 on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:57:38 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  oh are zeroes (none)
            confidential now?

            so much for trusting users.

            and was i lying?

            (-6.88, -8.31)-- "fuck your war... and your president."--Snake Plissken

            by binFranklin on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 11:13:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  More demonized (4.00)
          more publicized.

          more intentionally misunderstood.

          America needs an Enemy and aw shucks sorrry Islam today its you. Check your news sources agenda here folks and remember! america doesn't get to pretend we're better than everyone afte abu (btw wheres the rest)ghraib

          "The pen is mightier than the sword, but only at a range of greater than five feet" Malaclypse the Younger

          by buhdydharma on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:25:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The key word is Fundamentalism, not Religion (4.00)
        Chicagodem, et al...
        before we get into a religious conflagration here  - as if we haven't already - , I think we need to realize that the problem is not that most of us care on this blog which religious philosophy a person follows...

        We can be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Native American, Druid, Pagan, etc, ad nauseum, and I would think that most of us would afford each other our plurality of beliefs.

        The reason that many people go off on a particular religion in a particular diary, and maybe many really has nothing to do with the religion that may be the "target" but rather a radical, or rather FUNDAMENTALIST interpretation of that religion which leads to great trauma.

        I seriously doubt that most of the people (if they really thought about it) who bother to write a diary about something that involves a religion is actually against that particular religion, but is rather against the method that those who are the most fringe elements try to shove it down other's throats, either through violence, intolerance, or legislative efforts.

        As a Neo-pagan (yes, there are those of us here), I'm against any religion that attempts to force me to adhere to their system of belief, or proselytizes.  I consider my religion to be something personal to me, and I wish that everyone would regard it as such.

        Fundamentalism arises out of insecurity.  The fundy Xtians, the fundy Islamists, the fundy Hindus, the fundy Jews,  even the fundy Pagans only try and thrust their religion and their dogma on people because they need other people to accept it to reinforce the idea that they are right.  At the core of their identity though, I think they don't really believe it, otherwise there would be no need to do that _ their relationship with the Divine would be secure in their minds. And at the core of their "crusade" (no matter what the religion) is a desire to control others. And this, is also, due to insecurity.  And I have to say this, though I'm sure I'll be "crucified" for it, Monotheism breeds this, no matter what it's form.

        Every religion has beauty, because at the base of every religion is the quest to understand the nature of existence, and if there is a Divine Being to meet with it in some form of understanding and "communion". (not the Catholic term, ok?, but the term meaning to "conspire - to breathe with")  Every religion has mysticism at some level as the great liberator within that religion (except maybe aetheism), that frees the practitioner FROM that intolerance, because at that level it's realized that all paths lead up the same mountain to the same realization of Divinity.

        But you can't tell a fundamentalist that.  No matter what that person's religion is.  They have to be right, no matter what, even if it kills someone.  That's fear, my friends.  

        So, I think that this blog is relevant in that maybe we should think again before we are tempted to paint one religion with a paint that may be invalid, but I also think that just because we criticize an event that happens because of a fundamentalist bent of a vocal few, that we shouldn't censor ourselves to point it out - but with tolerance for the rest of the people in that religion who WOULDN'T have done that.  

        All religions have validity and are paths to an understanding of Divinity and life in general, but the danger  in any religion is Priest/esses running around with pointy hats spouting dogmas and rules, telling the followers not to think for themselves and to follow whatever they say without thinking.  That's really dangerous as it's Fascism.

        "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
        - Denis Diderot

        Something to consider.  I think many of us prefer to take charge of our own spirituality.

        And there is not one person in this world that isn't infallible, no matter what kind of hat they wear.

    •  See, I think that's irresponsible (4.00)
      In all of those places except for the Middle East, Muslims are a minority.  Even in the Middle East, the perceived power relationship is not exactly in their favor.  You can't ignore that fact.

      Islam has become the global minority and, in many of the places you cite above, it is an often-abused minority.  I know for a fact that in India, the history of Hindu-Muslim violence has plenty of villains on both sides.  And I know that's the case in Russia and the Sudan as well-- in fact in Sudan, some of the recent violence has been directed TOWARD Muslim minorities in the Christian section of the country.  Using these examples is like lecturing the Tutsi for being such horrible people while completely ignoring the actions of the Hutu.

      "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

      by ChicagoDem on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:16:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sure that there's always local issues (1.37)
        But in each of these places, Muslims appear more ready to resort to violence than other groups that suffer injustice.  

        The indigenous peoples of the US and Mexico were/are marginalized---but violence has been minimal.  

        Tibetans have been persecuted by the Chinese, but there's been no attacks on civilians.  

        Roma (Gypsies) are attacked wherever they live, but they don't resort to attacks.  

        The US screws with a lot of countries.  Only one chose to respond by storming an embassy and holding diplomatic personnel for over a year, in violation of international law.  

        Let's face reality.  There's a problem in the Muslim world.  

        Government should be limited not in size, Jon, but in effectiveness. In terms of effectiveness, this is the most limited administration we've ever had.

        by bosdcla14 on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:29:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Uhm... (4.00)
          There's been lots of political violence against American-supported regimes all across Latin America.  Almost all the violence in that troubled region has been in direct reaction to American policies.  I mean, don't you remember the Sandanistas?

          The other groups you mention are small, socially disconnected, geographically isolated groups.  If the Roma had a tradition of leadership but were being pushed down across the length of Eurasia, I'm sure certain members of them would use violence as well.  This is not an issue of faith, it is an issue of ethnic identification.  It's no fairer to condemn all Muslims than it is to condemn all Serbs.

          But as you say, only one country fell to a genuine Islamic revolution (Iran, although I guess you could include Afghanistan if you want to call a ragtag group of tribal militias a "government").  Most have been trying to maintain an uneasy struggle between secularism and the increasingly loud calls of Islamic fundamentalists.  When you discuss blanket condemnation of all Muslims, you ignore the millions of moderates who make up the majority of people in places like Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Indonesia.

          "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

          by ChicagoDem on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:49:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  boy is that ignorant and disrespectful (4.00)
      You need to learn more about the good points of the worlds other religions. Slavery, torture, intolerance, stupidity, genocide - every major religion has stunning success in these matters. Please don't come here with your Islamocentric nonsense and slight the accomplishmentts of Christians, Hindus, Animists, Jews, Buddists, and Pagans. The planet is soaked in blood and Islam is only part of the glorious mosaic of the religious contribution to this shared heritage of murder, rape, pillage, and pain in the name of God or Gods. In particular, the other world religion - Christianity - has an impressive record that is not at all less gruesome in any way than Islam.
      •  I'm not saying other religions are blameless (1.33)
        I am saying that right now, at this moment in history, Islam is more regressive and violent than other religions, as shown by the fact that they come into conflict any time they meet any other group.

        A fact you didn't even attempt to refute, choosing instead only to insult.  

        Government should be limited not in size, Jon, but in effectiveness. In terms of effectiveness, this is the most limited administration we've ever had.

        by bosdcla14 on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:23:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  really, it is obvious you don't know anything (4.00)
          How can you look at a planet where there are wacko fundamentalists of all stripes and single out Islam? Do you account for the Serbian and Croatian christians who massacred lots of pretty secular "muslims" quite recently? Are you even aware of the VHP and RSS in India? (see
          Did you tabulate the recent efforts of Christian churches in the ex USSR to impose ethnic and religious purity? Did you know that Jewish extremists in Israel demand genocide of the "Amaleks" ? And so on and so on.
          So why do you expect patient rejoinder to ignorant prejudice?
        •  Have you ever (4.00)
          known or met any Muslims?  Have you ever spent any time in a Muslim country?  What do you know about the history, beliefs, traditions, and culture of Islam?  You are making IGNORANT statements that are quite obviously based on the level of awareness of a 10-year-old.

          So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause -- Padme

          by dnta on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:08:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Factual error: (3.20)
      What about:

      The Holocaust
      The Spanish Inquisition
      The extermination of the Incas and Aztecs
      The conquest of the Native Americans
      The Crusades

      You're burying your head in the sand and not looking at the big picture. Its a fact of life that evil men can prostitute any religion and turn it into an excuse to kill people. That is true for ALL religions, not just Islam. Therefore, Islam is no worse than any other religion.

      •  hey Eternal Hope (4.00)
        you are just illustrating it's not the religion, it's the fundamntalism/fanatacsim...  A "4" in my book.

        I wish people would straighten this out in their heads.

      •   I agree with you- except it was genocide (4.00)
        Eternal Hope, I agree with your comment, but need to point out that the goal with Native Americans was not conquest, it was genocide, history documents this numerous times. Here   is just one example of many.
        The indigenous peoples who weren't killed had their families ripped apart, their children abducted off to boarding schools to be taught how to be "white".
        Forced assimilation gave way to outright murder.
        Today our government sits back while alcoholism, diabetes, and other diseases take their toll on the Native American tribes left in the country that was so cruelly ripped from them. Actually true Native Americans have never claimed to "own" this country-it belongs to the Great Spirit and all its inhabitants, two-legged, four-legged, mother earth, the water and the sky, all living things existing and sharing together.

        And as long as I am here I will add my feelings about religious discussion in this diary.
        Spirituality IS NOT RELIGION.  There is a vast difference.  Native American spirituality (not the New Age shaman bullshit) is a great example for any of us to aspire to.

        REAL NEWS-"The news you and I need to keep our freedoms." Richard Reeves

        by Oke on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:35:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I understand completely. (none)
          It's easy enough to deny that such actions were genocide; I fall into that trap, too. You're right about calling our policies towards Native Americans genocidal; a common saying during that time was that the only good Indian was a dead Indian.

          Sadly, such attitudes towards other peoples is widespread. That is why so many people were willing to give Bush a pass on invading Iraq.

    •  Well, I'll cut you some slack on that statement... (none)
      ... and, man, the flurry of "1"s for that sure cuts close to ratings abuse, IMHO.

      This is about the exact list that a Muslim writter for Paris Match used in an article he did examining the same subject [I apologize that I don't have the article anymore, so I can't source the name.]  

      It's too simplistic to just say "Oh, it's those crazy, violent Muslims again!"    But you do have a situation where dollars and resources are flowing out of one part of the world to support violent upheaval in other parts.  That's called a number of nasty things when the US does it, so I can't find it a very genuine attitude to take that it is okay when it's Wahabi's in Saudi Arabia or other oil-rich Arab plutocrats doing it.

      I personally think that there are a number of violent cultural trapings [female genital mutilation, anyone???] that some sects of Islam seem to have picked up and now spread as items of faith.  For whatever reasons historically, other faiths, at least in this point in their development, seem to avoided this pitfall {some of the worst Calvinistic Christian groups being an obvious exception.]  Buddhism, Mormonism and Judaism don't do much in the 'conversion by the sword'  arena, and never really have historically.  

      Those who fail to learn from history...are invited to submit an application for a position in the Bush administration.

      by Timoteo on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:26:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You could say the same thing (none)
      You could say the same thing about Christianity... and it would be just as bigotted as your statement.

      A "Christian" country that came into conflict with the Buddhists of Vietnam and Korea etc etc

      it's an utterly pointless statement because it ignores the real reasons for those conflicts, and instead replaces them with a blanket attribution to religion.

      I think you made a wrong turn bub, Free Republic is over there....

  •  dKos has an anti-religion bias in general (2.50)
    So it should be no surprise that has diaries that are anti-religion in particular.

    Notice how there was an attempt to shuttle off most of the religionists into a ghetto of sorts?

    •  Well, I am not religious at all (4.00)
      and think it's ficitous mumbo-jumbo, but there's a difference between that and putting down religions.  The comments the diarist noted are almost slurs, if not outright slurs.

      Visit and follow every 2006 Senate race.

      by AnthonySF on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:09:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Did you even bother to read the diary (4.00)
      ... that this diarist points to?

      In it, the author is roundly condemned for the displayed religious intolerance.

      That's what is seriously wrong with this diary.  It builds its case on a false premise.

      So before you go making generalized statements, bother to read what is being referred to in the first place.

      Otherwise, you just look foolish.

      Is Dick Cheney in favor of torturing Scooter Libby in order to get "actionable intelligence?"

      by Bob Johnson on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:37:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry Bob (none)
        It might be a generalization but it happens here way more often than should be accepted to say the least.

        If you'd like examples, I'll go back through my 2000 comments to find the responses from Kossacks in which I was roundly thrown to the side, not for my specific pretty far left Christian and specifically Christian by literal definition of the word, but thrown to the side for the term Christian in and of itself regardless of my explanation of my beliefs.

        The generalization is out of bounds as it isn't the rule....but it's definitely not a rare thing in the least bit.   It happens enough that I wouldn't even say it's an's just a minority.

        As far as this diary itself?   I've got mixed emotions and they're a bit enraged at both sides after reading so much cock-n-bull that I'm tryin not to get into it too much.   But their is more a default anti-the-word-"christian" here than there is any other spiritual belief.    To me, after experiencing it and reading it enough times in proper context time and time again for 2 goes without saying.   And again, it's not the rule....but it's not the exception either.

        Let's be real.

        George W. Bush, Resign NOW.

        by tlh lib on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 11:22:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Actually (none)
        I didn't realize that his link was pointing to "Street Prophets" so take my comment above as a general reaction to the comments you've made in this dairy (which I've felt a pretty strong disagreement with for the reasons expressed above)....not specifically to the one above.   I find this one  offensive to say the least as I think Markos has, as an atheist, gone out of his way to create a community complementary of this one....not segratationist as the "ghetto" comment indicates.

        George W. Bush, Resign NOW.

        by tlh lib on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 11:27:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Very nice (none)
      Calling a website set up by Kos and Pastordan to help promote liberal religiosity a ghetto.

      Have a big fat zero!

      Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

      Feingold for President

      by Goldfish on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:45:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hasn't worked (4.00)
      We still post and comment here. Pastor Dan's Sunday-night prayer diary should be along any minute. And there's been quite a religion sub-thread going on the Coburn diary as well.
    •  An interesting theory, (4.00)
      and one you may want to check with me.

      Street Prophets: where the cookies live now...

      by pastordan on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:15:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You must be joking. (none)
      PastorDan or Mrs. Pastor are in the recommended list every single sunday. Kos started a sister site devoted to progressive religion called Street Prophets. You want an anti-religious site, come on over and visit my friends on the Internet Infidels Discussion Board ( and find out what that's actually like before you say something so silly.
  •  I think... (4.00)
    ...the posters are referring to extremists in those particular faiths.

    There are many spiritual people from all sects of all religions who are good people who do good things.

    The quotes above appear to point the finger at various faiths as a whole.  While, I can't speak as to the intent of those who posted such things, I think most folks on this site are fed up with extremists.  The extremists are almost always the most visible.

    •  Just to be clear (4.00)
      Those quotes are modified.  In the original diary, bassman applies each of those statements to Muslims.  I was trying to enlarge the context to show how unacceptable those statements would be if applied to other faiths.

      "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

      by ChicagoDem on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:07:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I sometimes... (4.00)
        ...give people the benefit of the doubt and thus decide for myself that, "oh well, the person probably was only referring to fundamentalists and not to spiritual people like me."

        I should not attempt to speak for everyone.  As for me, you will not notice me bashing anyone except those Christian extremeists in the US.

        They make a mockery of my faith and it pisses me off.

        •  yes (none)
          I was only directing it at fundamentalists.
          •  You're a Liar... (4.00)
            "only directing it at fundamentalists"?????


            "The one thing I am intolerant of is intolerance and that is the only thing I see from the Islamic faith.  It seems an usually ignorant religion..."

            you're backpeddaling... its plain to see... pathetically transparent.

            An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind--Gandhi (-9.38, -7.59)

            by hopefulcanadian on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:33:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  OK, bassman (none)
            I've read both diaries and your comments here, and I have a question for you:

            What the heck do you mean when you say 'fundamentalist'?   I have no idea what you mean.  

            Care to elaborate?

            (sorry to ask in this diary, not yours...but, this is where everyone seems to be at the moment.)

            •  Definition (none)
              People here would define it many ways.  I define it as taking to the intolerant side of a faith.  Being a "true believer" .  
              •  Ok... (none)
                So, beyond that definition--which could be applied to anything, reallly; not just religion--is it fair to say that you don't really know very much about Islam?  I mean, if I were to ask you to explain the basics of Islam in, say, a few sentences--could I assume that you would not be able to do that?    Fair assumption?
              •  I've abstained from troll rating you (none)
                because I've abstained from troll rating, period, in these two diaries...well I lied....almost abstained.

                But how asinine can you get?

                Being a "true believer" in your spiritual faith equates to being automatically intolerant of any other faith?

                You haven't a clue what you're talking about.   You seriously need to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.   I've refrained from saying it because you've been diligent in defending your point of view but as I read comment after comment from're amongst the most intolerant of the intolerant here.   Without a doubt.

                The "shut the fuck up" might be, and is, in jest....but you might want to think about it before posting such bullshit as you've posted tonight.   You have stayed steadfast in defending it....but your defenses are most assuredly not to the benefit of you being taken seriously to say the least.


                George W. Bush, Resign NOW.

                by tlh lib on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 11:45:38 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Bullshit (none)
            You said that no country with a Muslim majority could ever be a democracy.  That's pig-ignorant bigotry, and in no way implies you were referring only to extremists.  But it's good to know that you may have begun to see the stupidity of what you wrote, since you're trying to pretend you didn't.

            So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause -- Padme

            by dnta on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:16:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  it isn't (4.00)
    Even got a "troll diary" tag pinned on it by some wise guy :-) (Seriously tho - your quotes actually capture the more palatable part of that diary. The asshat diarist goes on to call for the deportation of all muslims from France. Ugh!

    If you cannot convince them, confuse them. Harry S. Truman

    by brainwave on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:04:50 PM PST

    •  No (1.00)
      I called for lawbreaking rioters to be deported, not all muslims.  Probably a little extreme, jail time would be more appropriate.
      •  Okay (none)
        I stand corrected. Here's what you said:

        They need to round up and deport any rioter who is part of this rioting.

        Yes, you're right - that is the one sentence in your entire racist drivel that mentions rioters, rather than to generalize to all muslims.

        You should be banned for this diary.

        If you cannot convince them, confuse them. Harry S. Truman

        by brainwave on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:22:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Banned? (1.66)
          None of us would be talking about this in an honest way if I hadn't made that diary.  I did the same thing in the summer posting republican talking points about universal healthcare and I among others learned a wealth of counter talking points dems can use.
        •  very funny (1.00)
          You should be banned for this diary.

          Gee, I wonder why the GOP machine always runs circles around us at the polls?

          •  Are you implying (none)
            that Democrats need to turn to racism to win elections? Please explain your meaning!

            If you cannot convince them, confuse them. Harry S. Truman

            by brainwave on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:35:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  no (1.50)
              I'm referring to the collective knee-jerk 'you should be banned' on dKos by some users whenever the following are discussed:

              -election theft 2004
              -religious 'intolerance'
              -Poppy Bush and why Afghanastan was liberated first

              Has nothing to do with racism.  It has to do with the underlying democratic (small 'd') priciple of free speech.  There are members of the left who are as quick to take it away than those on the right.

              •  hate speech (none)
                I've never advocated banning the fraudsters and tinfoil hatters - even if they get on my nerves no end. But I draw the line at hate speech. Here's another choice quote from your fine friend:

                If the peaceful ones want to come here for an education fine, but that should be it.

                This kind of crap belongs in Freepersville.

                If you cannot convince them, confuse them. Harry S. Truman

                by brainwave on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:04:55 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  1st Amendment (none)
                Read it.

                Now read it again.

                This is a privately owned blog whose mission as stated by the owner is to progress Democrats in elections....period.

                Think about it.

                Any questions?  Repeat the above steps until you get it.   This isn't your town square where you're holding a speak-out on a soapbox with your 24x36 sign printed at your local copy shop.  There's a difference.  

                As far as people getting banned here?  It takes a LOT to get banned from Daily Kos.   It takes 1 or 2 comments to get banned from Red State.   I've watched people get 400 0's in a single night here and not get banned.   Kos has Scoop configured to ban on the most extremely light level (aka it takes a SHIT TON of 0's the likes of which hardly anyone ever sees to get auto-banned) and it takes some seriously trollish behavior to get banned by one of the admins.

                Your point is null and void and has no merit whatsoever here.

                George W. Bush, Resign NOW.

                by tlh lib on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 11:55:46 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  So you're saying (none)
            You have no problem with racist crap?

            Okay, if you say so buddy.

            Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

            Feingold for President

            by Goldfish on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:47:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  So (none)
            I have been lurking on kos for a good long while, and my last username was lost when my computer last crashed.

            Is it standard operating procedure that anyone with 69k+ UID automatically gets a zero rating when posting now?

            Exactly how does my comment deserve a zero?

        •  Republicans are the ones who ban people (none)
          from blogs because they don't agree with them.

          (Like me at RedState, BTW)

          No need to go banning people based on what they have to say.

          On the other hand, we should ban all muslims from the blog.


          congratulations on your foreskin -- osteriser

          by bartman on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:48:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  He's late to that game (none)
      Jean-Marie Le Pen and his Front National have been calling for that for years. They aren't getting quite as many votes as they used to in their glory days in the late '80s and early '90s--but that may change after the last 10 days in France, next time the French go to the polls.
  •  Religious intolerance (4.00)
    Is like a religion itself on this site.  You were here when the Pope died.  Remember the pathetic diaries then, with popular posters leading the way?  I've seen diaries making such broad statements against all religions, with the ignorant leading the way stating "Any religion that tells me I'm going to hell..."   Statements made that have NO bearing on the topic at hand, just gives the poster another chance to beat on religion (or the cutesy, "myth" or "superstition" they like to use).  

    All I'm saying is that I wouldn't hold my breath.  Posters who make suce statements I hold in the same regard as your typical Freeper poster.  I take everything they say with a grain of salt and/or tend to ignore them.

    •  I guess... (4.00)
      It's awful whenever it happens, but thankfully there are enough people who are able to argue it down.  I'm glad that the front page posters have done so much work to keep it from overwhelming the site, and that people like pastordan get so much credit here.  

      But I almost think the possible consequences for American Muslims if this kind of thinking becomes widespread make it particularly important to nip it in the bud.  American Catholics aren't in imminent danger of being sent to concentration camps and being tortured, thank God.

      "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

      by ChicagoDem on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:29:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you have a very good point (none)
        talking shit about Muslims could lead (maybe not directly)to people getting fired, jailed, beat up, etc.

        And besides that, broadbrushing any group of people is lazy-thinking bullshit and not worthy of a progressive site.

    •  Know what you are saying (none)
      When the Pope was sick, it was bad enough here that I stayed away for several weeks after the Pope died because I knew what I would read.  

      Calling out for tolerance on any of those religious themed threads can get you troll rated.  Don't know why it is that way but it is.  I'm Catholic but am also a person that will stick up for other religions or atheists that are being picked on because there is just no need for it. Live and let live!  

      •  Not true. (none)
        I have never seen anyone troll-rated for calling for religious tolerance.  And as you can see from my UID, I've been around the asylum a bit longer.

        What I have seen troll-rated are comments from people who support fundamentalist Christianity.  However, those people are generally arguing for religious intolerance and are, most usually, not actually being troll-rated for that but are being troll-rated because they are, in fact, GOP trolls.

        The Chimperor Has No Clothes

        by DC Pol Sci on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:39:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Truth (none)
          It is true and this is my second ID hence the newer number. I've actually been around longer than you.  Thanks for trying to make me feel like a clueless newbie.  ;)  

          Skim through one of the multitude of Catholic bashing threads if you want clear examples.  I don't care to revisit them again.  

          1's or 0's are rare from me. I prefer the feel good 4's-good for the giver and the receiver. :)

  •  answer to question (4.00)
    cuz religion has become a barrier from behind which we scream at each other rather than a reflective guide for how we conduct ourselves amongst each other.

    just a guess.

  •  Ahhhh... (none)
    Can't we all just get along?
  •  I recommended that diary and in fact posted some (4.00)
    comments trying to dissuade the diarist of his views or at least to give him a different viewpoint. I also learned more on that diary, amid all the flaming, about what is going on in France with the riots than I have been able to learn anywhere else here.  I am hungry for information about what is happening in France and in Europe in regard to their immigration situation and what tensions are building up as well as the cause of them.

    I also think sometimes, that considering that there has been so much of a focus on Islam and fundamentalists, over the past 5 years in this country, and it continues everyday, that it needs to be discussed on here in an open way if it is not extremely abusive.  People have many thoughts.  There are many things that are pushed down, and pushed down, and people are afraid to even think about them let alone express them.  There is something not right about that.  In this instance, the diarist was controversial, incorrect, and seen to be ignorant by many, but did not go to extreems in my opinion to be abusive.  So I thought that he stimulated conversation, that if it had stayed civil, would have been even more of a learning experience than it was.

    Just because a diary is recommended doesn't mean that the recommender agrees.

  •  Your diary about the danger... (4.00)
    ...of generalizations and stereotypes of religions would be more powerful if it wasn't composed of generalizations and sterotypes of religions.

    Sure, you chose the ones you like (Islam good, Christianity bad), but they are still sweeping generalizations and stereotypes.

    There are good, bad, and indifferent aspects to all religions, as there are to all human activities. As a proud member of the reality-based community--and a liberal too--I try to deal in specifics and avoid the generalizations. Religions are no more automatically good than they are bad.

    "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." - Bertrand Russell

    by Mad Dog Rackham on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:12:36 PM PST

    •  I'm not saying that at all! (4.00)
      I certainly don't hope to push the idea that Christianity is bad.  I've known many good Christians, and the core of Christian faith is very powerful and moving.  I actually went to a Jesuit university.  So I don't want to make it sound like I hate Christians at all.  I was just trying to draw a contrast, using a faith that most Westerners would sympathize with.  I completely, 100% agree with this:

      There are good, bad, and indifferent aspects to all religions, as there are to all human activities. As a proud member of the reality-based community--and a liberal too--I try to deal in specifics and avoid the generalizations. Religions are no more automatically good than they are bad.

      "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

      by ChicagoDem on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:19:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I believe you, but... (none) trying to establish a contrast, you produced a diary which characterizes Christianity by its worst offenses and leaves out any positive mentions at all.

        I'm not trying to argue about that, just pointing out that discussing religion is very difficult because religions have a lot of bad and good in them. Mention the bad and you get accused of being anti-religion. Mention only the good and you get accused of whitewashing.

        Somehow we need to be able to discuss hot-button issues like the recent spate of Islam-justified violence or the human-rights violations in Israel without being labeled anti-Muslim or anti-Semitic. It's just not possible to always include the complex history that would put these things in full perspective. We need to suppress our natural knee-jerk reactions long enough to have a useful conversation.

        "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." - Bertrand Russell

        by Mad Dog Rackham on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:46:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  "What you fear is not who I am" (4.00)
    Promote, from where you are, the universal principles of justice and freedom and leave the societies elsewhere to find their own model of democracy based on their collective psychology and cultural heritage. The path ahead is long and difficult, but there is no other way to succeed except to break our intellectual ghettos, to work together beyond our narrow belonging, and to foster mutual trust in the absence of which living together is nearly impossible. The quest for truth individually and collectively demands research, never judging without studying, clarity, consistency, trust, humility and perseverance. Tariq Ramadan

    Bassman, since you're here also, I would tell you that I grew up a Christian in a place where each morning, I was woken up by the muezzin's call to prayer from the mineret of the near-by mosque. To this day, it is the most peaceful sound that I can ever imagine. That's all!

    •   musical version (none)
      "Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but yourselves can free your mind." Marley

      ps One love, One heart

      "The pen is mightier than the sword, but only at a range of greater than five feet" Malaclypse the Younger

      by buhdydharma on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:54:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Read the "End of Faith"...... (4.00)
    ...the central argument of that book is that religious "tolerance" as you describe it is ultimately at odds with a secular democracy. This is shocking I know, and probably an unpopular belief but the signs are all around us. One Muslim in the Paris riots was quote as saying, with disgust, that the government wants to pass laws to protect immoral gay people, but not to assist the aggrieved immigrants in the suburbs.

    I believe that gays and lesbians should have full and equal rights, that a woman should have complete control over her body, including the decision as to whether or not to have an abortion, and that public schools have but one mission: To educate students in the reading, writing and arithmetic.

    Such notions are at odds with the belief of many (not all, but many) of the adherents to the commandents of the God of Abraham.

    Osama wants prayer in public schools; so does George Bush. Osama does not believe in a woman's right to choose; neither does George Bush.

    In Jerusalem, orthodox jews would not let the Jerusalem gay pride parade go forward.

    In Oklahoma, Senator Tom Coburn believes that gays are the greatest threat to our society.

    We tolerate a preacher, Reverend Phelps, who routinely pickets funerals with signs that say "God Hates Fags".

    Toleration of religion to these extremes is dangerous to your health, my life, and the viability of democracy itself.

    At some point, as we are seeing, something has to give: religion, or the secular democracy. We are, at present, incapable of the fine balancing act we have tried to maintain. Fundamentalists of all stripes are pushing us into government where the law is based on the Bible or the Koran.

    I will be the first person on his knees in fervent prayer if that happens, praying for deliverance from such oppression, and grieving for that fragile butterfly that was democracy.

    Tolerate this.

    "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

    by Bensdad on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:19:21 PM PST

    •  right on (none)
      At some point, as we are seeing, something has to give: religion, or the secular democracy.

      Exactly.  Is it not someone's religious belief that brown people should be slaves?

      Is it not someone else's religious belief that you should have as many wives and children as possible?

      I don't think I can comment on why one might think that 'religious intolerance' is so prevalent here at dKos, but I can tell you that I believe there is far, far too much tolereance for religion...just about everywhere else.

      As a species we still haven't gotten over the first holy war...

      •  Tolerance vs. acceptance or respect (none)
        Tolerance, in its historic sense and in careful usege today means refraining from persecuting.
        Tolerance is a social, cultural and religious term applied to the collective and individual practice of not persecuting those who may believe, behave or act in ways of which one may not approve....Tolerance is seen as a more widely acceptable term than "acceptance" and particularly "respect," where the application to controversial parties is concerned. Tolerance implies both the ability to punish and the conscious decision not to.
        Wikipedia: Tolerance

        What happens on dKos is disrespect or non-acceptance, not persecution (unless someone is taking bloglife way too seriously). That said, I think that pissing on religions is a bad policy and shouldn't be tolerated approved.
      •  asdf (none)
        I believe that any number of people should be allowed to marry any number of other people, as long as they are all of age and aren't doing it for some money/benefit loophole.

        Having said that, I'll wait another month or three before I use that joke again.

        Jumping on the bandwagon: (-3.63, -3.03) - Does that make me part of the right wing here?

        by someone else on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:49:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  But such toleration is the cross (none)
      we bear for democracy.
    •  I read "The End of Faith," (4.00)
      and while his chapter on Buddhist meditation and mindfulness is good, I was sorely disappointed with the rest of his book, which buys into the kind of egregious bigotry proferred by the likes of Samuel Huntington ("Clash of Civilizations" fame).

      I started reading the chapter on Islam, and found it jarring for its assumption of an inherent inferiority of Islam as a religion.  It echoed too strongly with tired old Western arguments that Islam (all of it!) is a stagnant and corrupt religion that failed to produce an industrial revolution (which, of course, we should all be grateful for here in the West!).  When I looked down and saw the footnotes referring to Huntington et al., I found it difficult to take him seriously any more.

      His arguments about the evils of religion are inconsistent.  Sure, he's on solid ground with the Inquisition.  But to place developments like the emergence of the Third Reich at the feet of religion is to ignore the whole complicated argument around the ramifications of the Enlightenment.  For Harris, the Enlightenment is all good:  it gave us democracy, the human sciences, modern scientific method, the concept of human rights, and so forth.  What he neglects to mention is that it also made possible the Faustian bargains of enormously destructive military technologies:  the machine gun, poison gas, the concentration camp, the gas chamber, the nuclear bomb -- these technologies of munitions, organization, systematization are also the legacy of the Enlightenment, of the "reason" that he so dearly defends.

      I guess I'm saying that I find his argument simplistic, and he's much better when he sticks to the links between neurobiology and spiritual experience, which is more in his neck of the woods.

      Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of nonthought. -- Milan Kundera

      by Dale on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:06:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you are an adherent...... (none)
        ...of any of the three religions of the God of Ibrahim, you might not like this book.

        The evils of Islam, as it is widely practiced, are self-evident. Christianity is ruining America, and the jews are clinging to tribal customs that seem intended merely to reinforce how special their tribe is. And they all hate each other and are bringing us to the brink of nuclear annihilation. All in the name of God.

        Middle Eastern religions are tearing the world apart.

        "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

        by Bensdad on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:15:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Personally (none)
          I think it's the tribalism of the Middle Eastern religions that is ruining the world. Native Americans still have tribes that are important to them but they stopping fighting over it. If so many tribes can stop fighting each other, why not 3 tribes?
          •  Don't know why you gave me a 2, Tux. (none)
            You may disagree with me, but my comments were civil.

            At any rate, there's plenty to worry about in the current state of religion, but we have to remember that many of these areas of the world that have gone extremist were radicalized by their sudden confrontations with Western modernity.  So Persia, which had a Western dictator in the form of the Shah crammed down their throats, imposing Westernized standards of dress and cultural elements, gets fed up and decides that it's Iran, not Persia.  

            I believe that the notion that you have to look back to the seventh century to explain the current situation of Islam -- while ignoring the specific circumstances of 20th-century modernity -- is ultimately wrongheaded.

            Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of nonthought. -- Milan Kundera

            by Dale on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:41:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Gotta read Karen Armstrong (none)
        Several books on the Abrahamic religions:
        The Battle for God - it's a history of fundamentalism that she starts back in the 15th century
        Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths
        A History of God
        also a really good biography of Mohammed, the name of which I forget.
    •  How about (none)
      Tolerant of intolerance of Humanists who believe they know everything? Pat thinks he speaks for Deity but all except for one of the Humanists I met think they are Deity because the think they know everything and want a theocracy as well, a theocracy of Secular Humanism.
  •  Maybe you should ask those who recommended it (4.00)
    ... why they did.

    Maybe they simply thought the discussion was worth having.  It appears to me that overwhelming majority of those responding to the diary condemn the narrow-mindedness of the diary's author.

    So your indignation seems inappropriate.  Particularly thsis sentiment:

    And yet this diary, which applies those exact sentiments to Muslims, is not only still active, but has been recommended by a number of posters.

    The diary is "active" with posters condemning the author, for the most part.

    And maybe that's why those recommneding the diary recommended it.

    Is Dick Cheney in favor of torturing Scooter Libby in order to get "actionable intelligence?"

    by Bob Johnson on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:20:08 PM PST

    •  All FOUR of them. n/t (none)
      •  Religious intolerance is worthy of discussion (none)
        ... but the poster trumps a reason for indignation in this case.

        My suggestion to the diarist: if you want to have an open discussion about the lack of religious tolerance on dkos, be honest about the way you present such a discussion.

        The response to the diary in question doesn't seem to bear out this diarist's point.

        Is Dick Cheney in favor of torturing Scooter Libby in order to get "actionable intelligence?"

        by Bob Johnson on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:33:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But (none)
          There were a number of comments that DID support the assertion of the original diarist, and some that even took it further.  I do think that the fact that the diary wasn't immediately deleted is an important indication of the type of things that we as a community will let stand.  I don't think statements about the inherent "backwardness" of certain ethnic groups should be appropriate topics of discussion on an ostensibly liberal website, personally.

          "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

          by ChicagoDem on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:58:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So what? (none)
            This is a community of 60,000+ users.

            Now you want the diary deleted?

            What the fuck?

            That's tolerance?

            A couple of things:

            1. You make assumptions about those who recomended it.  You assume thye agree with the diarist.  It hasn't occured to you that perhaps, in fact, they recommended it becuase they wanted to point to the discussion where nearly every poster roundly condemned the poster's bigotry?

            2.  And now you suggest that bigoted diaries should be deleted here?  Really?  What country do you live in?  Do you understand the concept of free speech?  In the diary you cite, the author posted a bigoted opinion of Muslims.  And was ripped by those responding.

            What I see is ignorance and intolerance on your part at least as equal to that of the diarist to which you point.

            Is Dick Cheney in favor of torturing Scooter Libby in order to get "actionable intelligence?"

            by Bob Johnson on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:04:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Bob... (none)
              I LIVE in the United States, and I think that if the KKK wants to march down 5th Avenue it's their choice.  But I POST at Daily Kos, and Markos has been very clear in saying that the First Amendment is pretty attenuated here.  I absolutely believe that bigoted diaries should be banned.  They do not represent the values of this site.  You've been here forever too, so I'm sure you've seen racist, homophobic, gender-negative, and other offensive diaries banned.  Don't act as though I'm suggesting some kind of nuclear option here, please.

              "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

              by ChicagoDem on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:25:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I cannot recall the last time I remember a diary (none)
                ... being pulled.

                Oh, I've seen people CLAIM that a dairyt has been pulled, but it ended up that the diary's author simple deleted it.

                I urge you to e-mail kos and ask him the last time he deleted a diary.  Or even how many he deleted in the last month.

                If it's more than one, I will be very surprised.

                Is Dick Cheney in favor of torturing Scooter Libby in order to get "actionable intelligence?"

                by Bob Johnson on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:28:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Yep (none)
      A recommendation needn't be interpreted as agreement with the diarist. There are many thin diaries that end up provoking remarkable discussion, worth recommending.

      Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

      by bumblebums on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:36:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Religion (3.91)
    I don't care what a person believes as long as they don't force their belief on me.
    •  Agreed but... (4.00)
      tough to find a place where that happens.

      "In God we trust"
      "one nation under God"
      "God bless America"
      "so help me God"

      tough place for an athiest to hang out.

      Just because you can doesn't mean you should!

      by taonow on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:41:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And why do those of us who (none)
        do not believe have to subsidize those who do?  Churches have an almost super 501(c)(3) status.  Many churches/religions cross the line with regard to political activity (anything more than a modicum of political activity is supposed to be a no-no for 501(c)(3) status), but the IRS cannot go after them because the political price they would pay would be horrendous.  If folks want to believe in a superior being, go ahead, but I should not be forced to help them spread their word.      
    •  some (much needed) comic relief (none)
      George Carlin has a great reading of the Ten Commandments

      Which includes:  "Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself."

      He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot - Groucho Marx

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:26:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Spud1 I really hope that three you gave (none)
      Coldblue Steele was a slip of the mouse???

      What an excellent day for an Excorcism... SCI/Kenyon

      by DianeL on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:41:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Question (none)
        Why is giving a three only acceptable when it's Nyberg? It says "good", which is the opposite of bad which is still positive. I just don't get why people call others out for a three, it's the magic number. Yes it is, it's the magic numbah.
        •  Nyberg is consistent (none)
          (from the diaries I've seen that he's visited), I guess would be the main reason, so it doesn't seem personal when he does it.

          But since the norm here has been generally to give below a four for negative reasons, when a person drops only one three, on a busy diary with similiar comments which didn't receive a three, it looks negative.

          Love the number three myself, I just never use it here because my opinion as to the distinction between good and excellent is fuzzy and subject to change; and primarily because it isn't worth it to me to risk someone feeling bad because they're not sure why I gave them a three, even further, for me, it seems it would be so tedious to decide whether to give a three or a four, I'd be rating one diary for a whole week.


          What an excellent day for an Excorcism... SCI/Kenyon

          by DianeL on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:31:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  currency (2.80)
    I'm reading this while watching a program about the "Crusades" on the History Channel.

    George Bush, our cheerleader in chief, says god led him to invade Iraq.

    The Methodists just defrocked a lesbian and re-instated a "minister" who refused to let a gay man join his congregation.

    I firmly believe that "religion is the opiate of the masses" has some truth in it but doesn't go nearly far enough in describing the evils of religion.

    •  OK, but what about good: (none)
      Mother Teresa
      Muhammed Ali
      The Dalai Lama
      Dorothy Day
      The Catholic Worker Movement
      The Quakers
      The Amish

      Please go away for a week, go to your local library, and read up on these people. Then, come back here and write a diary about this. Then, you will become much more credible around here.

      I am not asking you to quit being an athiest or agnostic; all I ask is that you show some respect for those of us who choose to believe in a God of some kind.

  •  you have a problem with muslims? (4.00)
    go eat pork, smoke drink alcohol, have premarital sex, hoarde all your money , and dont give any to charity, commit adultery, never have children (always use birth control), feel free to peddle high interest credit cards in low interest neighborhoods, encourage your children to stay out late at night, and have multuple sexual partners, devalue education and any value it might bring to life, and dont forget to encourage internacine hatred amongst kinfolk.
    also, go ahead, and walk the earth as if you own it, with arrogance, look down on others, feeling superior, and struggle against movements of equality and against any movements calling for justice in human affairs.
    be cruel to animals, and worship money, power, sex, whatever turns you on, because you cannot believe in one God or creator.

    do all these things, because they're forbidden in islam.
    An you , you want to show those muslims,
    show them whats right.
    the proper way to behave and believe.

    go stick a fork in it.

    im sick of your platitudes, generalizations, presumptions, half truths and all the rest your decerebrated conscisuness implores you to pronounce as fact.

    •  You failed to mention...... (none)
      ...having sex with a person of the same sex. Condemned by Islam. Punishable with death.

      "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

      by Bensdad on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:41:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  homosexuality (none)
        is forbidden in many religions, and yes islam looks disfavorably upon it, and as unnatural.
        this doesnt friends at kos, but yes, if you want to try to pick teachings you disagree with you have thousands and thousands to choose from, and certainly you seem to have come up with one you disagree with.
        like any critic looking to debunk something good would.
        •  That's why there is tension.... (none)
          ....between Islam (and other religions) and democracy.

          I applaud you for sharing an opinion that will be very unpopular here. That takes courage. Something we will all need if religion takes over government.

          "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

          by Bensdad on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:50:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Condemned, yes (none)
        Punishable by death only in some places. Widely practiced in most, including places where the people risk being stoned to death if caught. Moreover, it wasn't all that long ago when us fags got exactly the same treatment at the hands of our Western Christian brethren.

        Pot, meet kettle.

        •  No, not pot and kettle..... (none)
          ....I think that the three religions of the God of Abraham are tearing the world apart. I am intolerant of their practictioners equally.

          "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

          by Bensdad on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:37:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  "multiple sexual partners"... (none)
      Hey, wait a minute, you're saying this is forbidden by Islam?  I thought that in lots of places, you can have up to five, if you're male.
    •  Dang (none)
      go eat pork, smoke drink alcohol, have premarital sex, hoarde all your money , and dont give any to charity, commit adultery, never have children (always use birth control), feel free to peddle high interest credit cards in low interest neighborhoods, encourage your children to stay out late at night, and have multuple sexual partners, devalue education and any value it might bring to life, and dont forget to encourage internacine hatred amongst kinfolk.
      also, go ahead, and walk the earth as if you own it, with arrogance, look down on others, feeling superior, and struggle against movements of equality and against any movements calling for justice in human affairs.
      be cruel to animals, and worship money, power, sex, whatever turns you on

      Sounds like you know neocons in detail.

  •  The diary to which you point has been (4.00)
    recommended by all of four people. FOUR! While I was surprised to see Mary Scott's name there, this is hardly a wellspring of populous support from the dKos family.

    While I can understand wher the writer of said diary is coming from, their screed is has no factual basis. Islam is not a religion of hate, any more than Christianity is. This does not mean that some will try to twist it to fit their diabolical intentions, but is God to blame for that?


    •  Well (none)
      I guess I should modify that yeah.  I guess the number of fairly respected posters just shocked me.

      "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

      by ChicagoDem on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:35:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But you have no idea why they recommended it (none)

        You're assuming you know and you're assuming they agree with the diarist.

        How do you know that?

        Not only that, but you comment that the diary is "still active."

        Yes, it is.  With posters roundly condemning the diarist's bigotry, for the most part. And this undercuts the very title of your diary.

        The fact is, nearly all the posters in your targeted diary are NOT accepting religious intolerance.


        Have a discussion about religious tolerance on dkos, if youd' like.  But don't base it on a specious premise.

        Is Dick Cheney in favor of torturing Scooter Libby in order to get "actionable intelligence?"

        by Bob Johnson on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:48:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  pretty sure you've confused.. (none)
        I have to say, my faith in this site has been shaken by this diary's popularity, particularly among such leading posters as Maryscott..

        MaryScott with someone else - I didn't see any comments from her in Bassman's or hfiend's France/Muslim diaries.

        •  mary scott (none)
          is mostly definitely one of the few that recommended it.  i'd call her an idiot, but her drones would descend.  certainly an ignorant move.
          •  Recommending isn't the same as agreeing with.. (none)
            as others have pointed out.  So when the diarist said, "my faith in this site has been shaken by this diary's popularity, particularly among such leading posters as Maryscott and Delirium" -- I assumed she meant MS had commented in the diary.  

            She hadn't.

            •  Actually that's what shocked me (none)
              If a poster takes down an argument and then recommends the diary, that's one thing.  It's a clear indication that they're promoting the discussion of the topic.  But what do you do with a poster that simply recommends and moves on?  I've always interpreted that as basically unqualified support.

              In hindsight, perhaps that was wrong of me.  But I'd like to hear WHY some of these posters that I really do normally enjoy would want to promote a diary with those opinions.  Maybe I was wrong about them... but maybe I wasn't.

              "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

              by ChicagoDem on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:31:52 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Who knows what she or others were thinking.. (none)
                unless they commented in the diary, agreeing with the diarist, or some tenets of the diary - you can't really know for sure why they recommended.

                It's possible it could even have been an error, or a failure to read the diary.  What shocked me were the commenters who DID agree with the diarist!

                Maybe it would have been better to express disappointment with them.  If you are really concerned, perhaps email the two recommenders you mentioned and ask them, otherwise you'll never know.

    •  Surprise (none)
      I'm not surprised.  Much of the religious intolerance here on DKos seems to come from the same people over and over again.  

      I won't say that this is the case this time because I don't want to single anyone out.  I do have my personal list of screen names (I don't share so make your own)that I just avoid.  Avoid  as that I don't read any of their diaries and don't respond to any of their comments.  It helps cut down the amount of anger those people invoke in me and makes my DKosing much more pleasant.  I would have left here long ago if it wasn't for using this tactic.  

      Perhaps it is because most of us agree on political issues that those seeking to manufacture conflict need to hit on other sensitive issues like religion to get the attention they crave? Or maybe they just can't help showing off their intolerance by bashing other religions or atheists? Could be something else entirely...I just know I'm personally sick of it.

  •  belief (none)
     have to tolerate any persons right to believe what they want to .That does not mean that I have to believe everything that they believe.I will defend anyones right to be wrong. After all every relegious belief system states that if my faith is right yours must be wrong.
  •  First Amendment. (none)

    The beneficiaries are likely to be...large corporations and development firms. (O'Connor, J. dissenting in Kelo). God bless you, J. O'Connor.

    by xanthe on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:31:41 PM PST

  •  i've never felt (4.00)
    as though i had to agree with everything here.

    still, i think Islam is a greatly misunderstood religion, due mostly to fear and prejudice,  and i  do agree with ChicagoDem.

     "radical" Islam is a response to colonialism and  all that crappy little dictators 'the west' has installed and supported, while Christian "Puritanism" seems  rooted in the fear of others.

    i myself am an atheist who grew up in Alabama, i know something about intolerance, and while nonreligious i have to admit that there are things, in all religions, that are really humanity at it's best.

    or at least it should be.


    (-6.88, -8.31)-- "fuck your war... and your president."--Snake Plissken

    by binFranklin on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:34:33 PM PST

  •  one of the problems is (4.00)
    that in the USA, the community at large tends to try to force religion down one's throat.  That might not be true in select cities (say and Austin, TX or Berkeley) but it is true in the large.

    Example:  what chance would an open atheist have of winning a seat in congress, or a seat in the Senate?  How about at the STATE level?

    So, I think that at places like the Daily Kos, you see some counter-reaction to that.

    Obviously, it would be wrong to pigeon-hole people into boxes by labels but the fact remains:

    1. the Jewish Holy Bible talks about their God appoving of the wholesale slaughter of people whose land is promised to the Jews

    2. Christians have had a very bloody history, including some bloody failures in the US (approving of slavery and segregation in the US, for example)  Some forms of Christianity teaches that non-believers will be eternally damned.

    3.  The Koran talks about "lopping off the heads" of the unbelievers and of unbelievers burning in hell.

    4. Mormons teach that dark skins on humans come from a curse by God; prior to being so cursed, they were a white people who were delightful to behold. (Book of Mormon).

    And yet there are wonderful human beings that come from each of the above faiths.

    Personally:  I am a UU; our history has some of our so-called tolerant churches keeping African Americans out of them (back in the 1960's) but the larger fellowship didn't kick these churches out (as they should have) due to our "local autonomy" traditions.

    When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

    by onanyes on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:37:46 PM PST

    •  Athiests have almost 0% chances of getting elected (4.00)
      At even local levels. Even if someone was an athiest, I think they would automatically affiliate with some church, synogague or temple just to get some political cover.

      I'll laugh for hours the day that I see an open athiest run for a federal race and win, because then I'll know that we are all equal in one respect of the Constitution.

      " When the best rulers achieve their purpose Their subjects claim the achievement as their own." - Tao Te Ching

      by ravenastro on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:58:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Blame not others, blame muslims themselves (1.54)

    There's a lot of ill in the world, a lot of poverty and lot of oppression too.

    I think you'd agree that it's not directed only at muslims alone, a lot of non-muslims are victim of injustice.

    How many then, do you see blowing up civilians and killing innocents in the name of their religion?

    How many non-muslim groups do you see beheading infidels while praising their deity? You are Hindu, do you see VHP or RSS beheading anyone to the cries of Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva?

    How many Hindu or Sikh or Buddhist insurrections do you see worldwide? I see Chechnya, Al-Qaeda, Kashmir as Islam's current fields of war against infidels.

    I think you'll try to justify the actions.

    Injustices of foreign policy.

    But in my simple opinion: nothing washes the sins of blowing up "infidels". There is a certain line one never crosses and lots of muslims have done it, in the name of their own religion. Blame them. Remind them of Saladin. Remind them of the age where Islam was tolerant.

    •  TazMan: don't be a loser (none)

      If you are going to vote me "1", debate me and tell me why.

      Don't be a drive by troll.

      •  look here (4.00)
        if you make the argument that muslims blow themselves up and other religions dont,
        i in turn make th argument that
        what other religions are suffering under such oppression currently throughout the world in the places that you mention??

        in gujarat, there were the now famous gujurat massacres of muslims wholescale rapes and more by hindu authorities.
        in chechnya, the russians are occupying and making life unlivable for Chechnyan muslims, and so there is a counter mnovement
        and so on and on.

        now, you make it sound as if they blow themselves up not out of self defense but for some religious purpose.
        on the contrary, islam is completely against suicide and killing civilians.
        these are political reactions.
        and furthermore,
        fighting oppression is different then spreading terror.
        so i ask you,
        if you want to blame the muslim,
        it is like blaming the slave.
        why not ask of the oppressor the same kind of so called justice that you ask of the subjugate.

        or the long range missiles and bomb clean enought that they are so sanitary that collateral damage is not the same as if it were from a human bomb.
        who has caused more deaths,
        hiroshima, nagasaki, vietnam, and iraq OR
        the muslim suicide bombers you speak of?
        answer this, and i will be willing to debate you.

        •  do YOU even know how many died in nagasaki? (none)
          the combined deaths from the two atomic explosions was around ~110,000.

          in the context of world war II, where 55 million died, your kneejerk citation to these events is rather strange.

          I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

          by The Exalted on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:01:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  i cite nagasaki because (none)
            it is an example of distant killing:
            just drop the bomb, use the technology.

            in wwii soldiers fought and won,
            in nagsaki , it is
            just a bomb from above.
            and it is in stark contrast to a poor man fighting oppression with stones or whatever he might gather.

            •  but what is your point? (none)
              and, for that matter, you think the saudis who destroyed the WTC were "slaves" revolting against their "masters," the ordinary civilians who worked in the WTC?


              I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

              by The Exalted on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:08:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  did i ever mention WTC (none)
                you just mentioned it.
                there is no defense for 9/11.
                there is no defense for al qaeda.
                what makes you take my comments and apply them in this way?
                •  your words (none)
                  on the contrary, islam is completely against suicide and killing civilians.
                  these are political reactions.
                  and furthermore,
                  fighting oppression is different then spreading terror.
                  so i ask you,
                  if you want to blame the muslim,
                  it is like blaming the slave.

                  I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

                  by The Exalted on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:15:10 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Oh really? "Self defense"? (1.00)

          You talk of the Gujrat massacres, right? Do you know what started that bloodletting?

          Refresher: muslims burnt 59 muslims. Remember? That was no act of "self defense".

          Kashmir: the Hizbullah (not to be confused with Hezbollah of Lebanon) and other terrorist organisations were killing Hindu civilians. That was "self defense" too?

          9/11 was "self defense"? An act of "revolt by a slave"?

          If you are comparing Nagasaki/Vietnam/Hiroshima with  suicide bombers, I will not apologize for American militarists but I won't stand anyone apologizing for Islamic terrorism.

          Why is Islam, out of all the major religions in the world, the only one in conflict with others?

          Instead of blaming others, maybe muslims ought to look and examine the rot inside.

          Killing civilians is no "counter movement".

          •  araina (none)
            you can make it out to be the kasmiri miltants falult and
            the gujurat massacres to ve the fault of muslims???
            that ones hard to swallow.
            go and read what Arundhati Roy has to say about the gujurat massacre of muslims.

            as far as kashmir, we re notgoing to solve that question between us.
            as far as so called islamic terrorism as has been and continues to be painted in our world,
            i must say that why dont we call every other fricking militant group like that:
            catholic terroitss, christian terrorist.
            how dare you associate my religion with a handful of terorrists.
            ive met thousands of mulsims in my life, never met a terrorist, ok.
            so what the hell is all this bullshit about islamic terrorists
            these are political movements, call them by their real name.
            and im not going to come nad defend their actions.
            as an american, i can repudiate what my country does around the world in terms of militarism

            and so we go in circles.

            •  the terrorists cloak themselves in islam (none)
              and their stated goal is the establishment of a global caliphate

              thus, they are associated with islam

              I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

              by The Exalted on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:09:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  just like.. (none)
                the white supremacists cloak them selves in christianity.
                from now on,
                call the christian supremacists.
                and we'll be even, ok?
                •  when christian groups (2.50)
                  propagate acts of mass terror, then terrorism will be associated with christianity.

                  the sporadic bombings of abortion clinics and Centennial Park does not compare to 9/11, african embassy bombings, nightclub bombings, and the USS cole, except in the sense that a mote of dust compares to mountain.

                  I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

                  by The Exalted on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:17:58 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  your argument (none)
                    is that since terrrists who act in the name of islam have done these acts , therefore we should label them islamic terrorists.
                    hoever, the chritian supremacist is only the abortion clinic guy?

                    george bush is a born again christian who derives much of his thinking and wisdom from his religion.
                    i make the argument here that his policies promote a state sponsored christian terrorism that is more destructive and more deadly because of the resources avaliable, than any so called islamic terrorism.
                    so uneless we get the names straight,
                    we should just call them by their actual names to make it fair,

                    Al Qaeda
                    instead of
                    conaming 1 billion defendants wrongly accused,
                    and who demand to have their name back.
                    not Bush, not al qaeda , they dont act in my name
                    and they probably never will.
                    unless we clean up the language, this is mass libel, affecting in areal way over a billion lives.

                  •  Fallujah (none)
                    The mass bombing of Fallujah and the deliberate targeting of doctors and ambulance drivers there could easily be seen as terrorism or if you like Christian terrorism particularly if you just happened to live in the town.
            •  Not me but your fellow muslims (1.00)

              Here's a helpful hint: watch out for some beheading video.

              Note the 4 guys in mask yelling "Allah U Akhbar".

              Fly over and tell them not to "dare to associate" Islam with violence.

              Your time would be well spent and it would certainly help humanity if you logon to an Islamist website where they are rah-rahing blowing up people and remind them about the peaceful teachings of Islam.

              This is very simple if you think about it.

              Right now and maybe in 200 years, it will be judged a historical aberration: Islam is being put on the forefront not by the likes of Saladin (as ChicagoDem fondly reminds us of) but by the likes of Osama bin Laden and his wannabes in Kashmir, Chechnya, Middle East, SE Asia and other places. They are the ones blowing up civilians and not ashamed of saying that it is their duty as muslims to do it.

              Please give them a rating of "1".

              •  a rating of 1? (none)
                they have a negative rating, and will get theirs one day.
                but stop demonizing muslims,
                im sick of it.
                most people who demonize muslims usually dont know any muslims, and secondly, dont know much about what they believe.
                im not saying thats your case, but its the general trend.
                •  They demonize themselves (1.33)

                  If you are sick of it, I'm telling you, your time will be well spent educating the people in the NWFP that Osama demonizes Islam.


                  Also stop by Karachi where Osama is a celeb:


                  Islam's problem is internal. Till muslims stop blowing up people worldwide and then claim it as their religious duty, they alone are responsible for demonizing the religion.

                  Oh, drop by Nigeria too, collect those frequent flier miles:


                  If I post at Dkos, it is because I would like to see a kinder, gentler America, both internally and outside.

                  But I don't tolerate terrorists and too bad you don't like me pointing out that they are muslims.

                  •  Look: (none)
                    You are lumping terrorists in with Muslims. These people are no true Muslims. Bin Laden and his followers have prostituted the name of Muhammed, and most Muslims repudiate him and his evil actions. To lump Bin Laden in with Islam is totally uncalled for.
                    •  I'm not "lumping" (none)
                      If you read the links, a lot of muslims are proudly associating themselves with bin Laden.

                      I'm not CREATING the association, simply pointing out that it EXISTS.

                      •  Wrong. (none)
                        Support for Bin Laden in the Muslim world has dropped dramatically in the last three years.

                        Most Muslims would repudiate Bin Laden's evil actions.

                        •  Any surveys/polls/links (none)
                          To backup your opinion?
                          •  Good link! (none)
                            However, the poll finds support for bin Laden waning, not non-existent. And if you read your own link, the findings are totally contrary to the general notion that a "minority of muslims" support extremism.

                            The survey found only 2 percent of the people polled in Lebanon and 7 percent in Turkey expressing confidence that bin Laden would "do the right thing regarding world affairs." The proportion that expressed confidence in the al Qaeda leader dropped from almost half to about a quarter in Morocco, and from 58 percent to 37 percent in Indonesia. Bin Laden's standing went up slightly in Pakistan, to 51 percent, and in Jordan, to 60 percent.

                            But Norton also noted: "As the events in London show, it does not take too many people to cause big problems. If only 1/10,000 of 1 percent [of the Muslim world] is inclined to terrorism, that is still 1,200 potential mass killers."

                            So you can see: we still have a LOT of muslims who favor extremism.

                          •  And: (none)
                            A majority of people here in this country favor creationism over evolution. If that's not extremism, then I want to know what is.

                            A lot of good creationism did us back in the Middle Ages. It didn't stop the plagues; evolution did.

                            And hardly any Muslims would support extremism here in this country. There have been only 14 convictions of people linked to Al-Qaeda in this country since the 9/11 attacks. There have been almost no cases of disloyalty here.

                            Which just proves my point -- we are fighting against fanaticism and fundamentalism, not Islam. Even Bush knows that.

          •  whee, now there is a comment (none)
            that could be applied to every single religion and country I have ever heard of...:

            "Why is Islam, out of all the major religions in the world, the only one in conflict with others?
            Instead of blaming others, maybe muslims ought to look and examine the rot inside.
            Killing civilians is no "counter movement".

            Pot..aren't you leaving out the other kettles?..

            •  Am I? (none)
              Alright please, show us a religion that's been killing "non-believers" and not thoroughly chastised for it?

              Heck, we still hold Christians culpable for the Crusades (I'm not Christian btw).

              •  well (none)
                ..the Christian crusaders sure killed people
                in the name of religion..or at least blamed it on religion...

                Here in American we had that little matter of the Puritans burning witches..although we mostly got over that and now only a few assorted nuts kill gays in the name of the bible...and oh yes, there was that matter of Franklin Graham declaring we ought to "nuke" all the Muslim countries right after 911..thank God no one followed his suggestion...

                Face it there are nut cases in all the religions...and they have all killed people...the Bible has some pretty violent passages in it if you ask me.

                •  I totally agree with you (none)
                  Are we proud of Crusaders here on Dkos? And do we not rail against the Grahams, the Pat Robertsons? Do we not say Christianity is being given a bad name by these folks and their supporters?

                  So why the intellectual dishonesty in pointing out that Islam has an image problem because of the guys who blow up innocent civilians claiming it as their Islamic duty?

                  •  I odn't think it's dishonest (none)
           point that out at all....

                    We just can't pretend they are the only ones.

                    It would probably be more enlightening to discuss "how" religions are twisted by small groups rather than just addressing  one particular religion.

                    It's annoying I know to have always qualify your every statement when talking about a religion by adding "and this and that one" but if you don't then it's gonnna look like you are just singling out one...

              •  Alright, please: (none)
                Does that mean we condemn all Muslims?
              •  ummmmm (none)

                read what you said again....seriously...NO ...SERIOUSLY LOL

                George W. Bush, Resign NOW.

                by tlh lib on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 03:17:06 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  This line has been crossed... (none)
      ...not just by Muslims, but by Christians (gay-hatred, religious overtones to Iraq war as evidenced by teaching at Air Force academy), and Jews (no gay pride parades in Jerusalem) and, of course.

      What do they have in common? The God of Ibrahim.

      Religion these days is like a gun. You would never put it in the hands of a child.

      "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

      by Bensdad on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:45:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Tamil Tigers (4.00)
      How many non-muslim groups do you see beheading infidels while praising their deity? You are Hindu, do you see VHP or RSS beheading anyone to the cries of Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva?

      How many Hindu or Sikh or Buddhist insurrections do you see worldwide? I see Chechnya, Al-Qaeda, Kashmir as Islam's current fields of war against infidels.

      Wasn't it Hindu Tamils who pioneered the use of suicide bombing as an insurgent tactic, and use it till this day.

      So no beheadings yet, but every religion has its fanatics, even Hinduism.

      •  Oh come on. (4.00)
        Don't be bringing facts into this.

        Just when we had a good rant going.....

        The sad thing about Sri Lanka is that it's one of the few places in the world where Buddhists have given in to violence. (Because the civil war there is Tamils vs Sinhalese, who are predominantly Buddhists.

        In general, the Buddhists have been the one shining light when it comes to religions claiming to be for peace. The Buddhists don't just talk the talk, they walk the walk. (With a very few exceptions.)

        congratulations on your foreskin -- osteriser

        by bartman on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:05:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, they did (2.50)

        And tell me when were they blowing up "infidels" from Bali to Bahrain to NYC in the name of their religion?

        AFAIK: Sri Lanka has a civil war and it has political/ethnic origins, not religous ones.

        •  This is just more utter ignorance (4.00)
          The only "fact" that rises from your mindless spewing is that there are some number of Muslims in the world who have embraced terrorism, while proclaiming to do so in the name of their religion.  Their terrorism is not caused by Islam, it is not taught by Islam, it is not acceptable under Islam, and the vast, vast majority of Muslims condemn and detest the terrorists' extremism.  Yet you deliberately choose to assert that there is a "problem" with Islam, the religion, that is the underlying cause of the terrorism.  That is simply stupid, ignorant, and illogical reasoning.

          What about pogroms and the Holocaust against Jews by Russian Orthodox and Lutheran Germans?  Do those actions require us to condemn those religions?  What about the Spanish Inquisition, and the massacres of Protestants in the Middle Ages?  Was it Catholicism itself that was to blame?  There are hundreds of other examples.

          You add nothing to the important discussion of religion, terrorism, tolerance, and clashes of cultures by your kind of pig-headed generalizations.

          So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause -- Padme

          by dnta on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:45:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Pardon my "ignorance" learned one (none)
            But I really make no assertion that Islam teaches blowing up people.

            I am simply stating:

            1. Islam has an internal problem.
            2. Muslims are blowing up people in the name of Islam.
            3. No other major religion is in (or appearance of) conflict with other major religions like Islam.
            4. Instead of telling non-muslims that Islam preaches peace/justice/love, it'd be more helpful for humanity if these teachings were revealed to the guys who are chopping off heads while screaming "Allah u Akhbar!".

            Oh, was the "pig-headed" jab a hit on me or Islam? Careful now, you might get labelled a bigot. ;-)
            •  Your comments reinforce my point. (4.00)
              1. "Islam has an internal problem."  This is a meaningless statement.

              2. "No other religion is in conflict with other major religions like Islam".  This is a childish generalization that also means basically nothing.

              3. This statement is even more foolish than the others combined.  Of course Islam preaches to its followers not to engage in violence!  Do you honestly think that it does not?  Why do you insist upon generalizing from the heinous actions of a tiny, tiny fraction of the Muslim world to attach assumptions to the religion as a whole, and its adherents?

              Quick quiz for you: which ethnic/religious group in the world has been the greatest VICTIM of Islamist terrorism?  Which group has suffered the most due to extremist attacks in the "name" of Islam?  (Hint: it's pretty darn certain that it's nobody you've ever met.)

              So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause -- Padme

              by dnta on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:19:13 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  adsf (none)
                1. Ok, it means nothing to you. That doesn't make me ignorant.

                2. "Childish generalizations" exist in the eyes of the beholder. That's your opinion, I stand by mine.

                3. I am no Islamic scholar. I only see these vocal folks claiming that they are doing what they are doing in the name of their Faith. From Kashmir to NYC to Bali to Baghdad to Lebanon to the West Bank.

                I am assuming that you are an Islamic scholar and have some facts to back up your assertion that Islam is negatively portrayed by a "tiny,tiny" minority?

                Answer to your question: fellow muslims who've been slaughtered as "agents of the infidel"?

                Our disagreements might be there, but I thank you for the opportunity to reply. At least you didn't zip by a 0/1 rating without telling me why.

                •  A vital distinction (none)
                  Yes, the answer is "fellow Muslims", but you perpetuate the fundamental misconception with your "agents of the infidel" slight.  No, most Muslims would just as soon live in peace and tolerance, and a large proportion are increasingly inclined toward "modern" lifestyles and less strict religious precepts.  The fundamentalist movement has always seen these tendencies among fellow Muslims as their true enemy, and so they have attacked their own people in the attempt to undermine secularism and modernism.  It is not about these victims being seen as "agents of the Infidel" (i.e., of the U.S. or the Christian West in general), but simply as not "pure" enough.  

                  Take Algeria, where a deadly civil war has been underway for more than a decade.  The fundamentalist rebels who have blown up 10s of thousands of their countrymen do not, except in perhaps the most symbolic, indirect way, consider their opponents to be controlled or dominated by the United States.  Indeed, Algeria was a Soviet ally and a quasi-Marxist state until pretty recently.  These rebels simply want to impose a strict Iranian-style theocracy, and are willing to kill less strick Muslims in the cause.

                  Do you see the point?  When it's Muslims against Muslims, the "problem" is not due to anything within the religion itself, it is about political and cultural conflicts among those who practice and interpret their common religion in different ways.  To attribute terrorism to the religion is like blaming democracy or Christianity for the American civil war.

                  So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause -- Padme

                  by dnta on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:58:13 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'll accept your viewpoint (none)
                    But then there's this reality too.

                    They say (I think the OP did too) that the muslims are bombing due to "injustices and oppression".

                    If that's true, how come when the US was supporting Pakistan and Pakistan was (and still is) funding an Islamic insurgency in Kashmir which uprooted millions of Hindus, that no 19 Hindus boarded a plane and blew up 3000 Americans as revenge for the "injustices perpetuated by America"?

                    Or when Saudi Arabia was financing madrassas in Pakistan to train/brainwash insurgents worldwide, did we see any other religous group go and blow up buses in Saudi Arabia.

                    The answer to both questions is NO.

                    There is a certain heistance and I don't know why to call a spade a spade and point out that Islamic world has, at the least, got to take a look inside itself.

                •  Look: (none)
                  Why are you singling out Islam? I am sure I speak for everyone here when I say that any evil act can be justified in the name of any religion, not just Islam.

                  To use Bin Laden's condemnations as a blanket condemnation of Islam is offensive to me and a great many people here.

                  •  Because: (none)
                    This is a diary about Islam!!

                    The OP's original contention was that a previous diary was unfair to Islam. I contended, it wasn't because there are muslims who have given their own religion a bad rep.

    •  I wonder ... (4.00)
      ... how many Muslim children have been blown to bits by American bombs dropped by Christian soldiers?

      And how about that daycare in the Federal Building in OKC? Was a Christian who felt not a qualm about tearing the arms off of three year old girls, blinding young boys, eviscerating babies.

      Oh. I see. Those actions, and the thousands more like them committed in the past few years alone --- they don't count, do they?

      So much easier to scapegoat the Muslims, isn't it?

    •  I have two words for you (4.00)
      Aum Shinrikyo.

      Or two more: Soka Gakkai.

      Yes, even Buddhists have their radicals. (Though in fairness, I suspect most Buddhists feel about either of those two groups the way most Muslims feel about al Qaeda.)

    •  Well (4.00)
      The first political murder in Israeli history was the assassination of the British governor by a Jewish partisan who felt the colonial authorities were being harder on the Jews than the Muslims.

      People who feel like they're oppressed often react violently.  The idea that it's restricted to Muslims is a Fox News fiction.

      "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

      by ChicagoDem on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:02:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Enough blame to go around (none)
      Truly dreadful things have been done by both hindus and muslims. And don't forget the adventures in the former Yugoslavia. Or the Lord's Resistance Army. Or so-called "shock and awe". Or Northern Ireland for the last umpteen years. Or Hiroshima. Or the genocide of Aboriginal peoples all over the world. Or... You get the picture.

      Just now, we are getting a fairly steady diet in the media about Islamic terror, and it colours our view of the world. But human nature is human nature, and there is always and Us and a Them and a fear of the Other.

      I could be really wicked and point out the one characteristic that the perpetrators of all these atrocities have in common, if we really want to place blame where blame is due. But I'll let you figure it out.

      •  You make valid points (1.66)

        You make a good point that there is enough blame to go around.

        This site is rightfully filled with criticism of the likes of Falwell and Roberston and others who discriminate and preach hate from the pulpit.

        There is rightful criticism of Israel for frequent "Collateral damage".

        There is rightful criticism of the Catholic church for the coverup of the child abuse.

        But criticize terrorists who themselves say they are fulfilling their own religious duty and it is "intolerant"?

        •  Don't you see (none)
          A difference between criticizing "the terrorists" and criticizing ALL MUSLIMS?

          "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

          by ChicagoDem on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:29:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Believe me, I am no friend of terrorism (none)
          But I do not make blanket assumptions about whole races/religions based on the actions of a minority. I make no excuses for terrorists, but I don't see the eyes of a terrorist looking out of every brown face.

          I'm not a big fan of religion either - I was innoculated at an early age by a conservative christian upbringing.

          My personal experience with individual Muslims has been overwhelmingly positive - they have been among the kindest, most gracious, and most generous people I have had the privelege to know.


    •  Look: (none)
      This is totally uncalled for and very offensive to me. All religions have done these things, not just Muslims. Evil men are the problem, not religion;

      For example:

      --Buddhist sects fought extensively in civil wars in Japan;

      --A Hindu assassinated Gandhi;

      --There is a lot of Buddhist-Hindu violence in Sri Lanka;

      And, of course, there is Stalin and Chairman Mao, both of whom violently suppressed religion and killed millions of people.

  •  If the religious were tolerant of other (none)
    religions, then there wouldn't be a problem.
  •  I Have Dressed Down My Partner (4.00)

    who once was a hyper-liberal on the subject of intolerance, for allowing his fear and anger of 9/11 to paint a broad stroke of anomosity toward Muslims, my boss included - as a Pakistani born Muslim.

    It drives me insane when he condemns an entire faith for the acts of a few mad men.

    In fact, recently, I watched two lengthy documentaries on the Muslim faith to be more informed about it.

    Muslims support the same monotheistic beliefs Jews and Christians support with some variances, of course. But they honor and respect the Jewish prophets and Jesus.

    Point being, Jews and Christians share a LOT more in common with Muslims then where they differ.

    THAT being said, I FULLY support anyone's right to spew forth whatever they want to say about any subject, including religion - EVEN IF IT'S A BOLD FACE LIE.

    I am an absolute fanatic about the right to free speech, and although, technically blogs like DKOS are not exactly a true public forum (Mr. "Kos" has the right to regulate speech on HIS blog), I would hope he would allow free speech to flow here (unlike RedState), no matter how repugnant.

    How do we fight repugnant speech? By criticizing it in the market place of free speech.

    I say the more speech the better. I SUPPORT Nazi and White Supremacy speech - not because I agree with it (It makes me want to puke), but because EXPOSING such hate talk with truth and fair-mindedness is much better to censoring such speech.

    SO let religious bigots speak. And you all speak your mind in return.

  •  I watched Jimmy Carter explain................. (4.00)
    While doing a long CSPAN interview with Brian Williams the very devout religious evangelical ex-President Jimmy Carter addresses the differences in the religion debate.

    In most cases all basic religions with the moderate believers are just and fair minded people he says. And he includes many evangelicals into that group.

    Where the line gets drawn for Carter is when the word FUNDAMENTAL is included into the fray. He contends that FUNDAMENTAL first means that women are not included in any power of their lives. The FUNDAMENTAL of any religion beleives that allowing women rights, power and privledge will destroy the true esence of their worship creed and ofcourse undermine the crazy nuts (men) who want to control the whole world.

    Human rights is undermined by FUNDAMENTALS starting with women and moving on from there.

    Carter also says that the FUNDAMENTAL knows absolutely that HE is right about everything. Therefore, he never has to admit he's wrong nor does he need to conceed or negotiate anything because everyone else who does not believe exactly as HE does is wrong and a lower form of human than the FUNDAMENTAL....

    Sound like anyone we know?

    Didn;t mean to rob your great post....your point is excellent. Religion is not the problem...extreme FUNDAMENTAL religion is...being Dobson or Asama....or Bush....!!!!

    I miss the good ole day's of Bill Clinton...

    by JellyPuddin on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:44:32 PM PST

    •  The problem is...... (1.00)
      ...either you believe the Bible (God hates fags, to put it simply), or you don't. How do you find that middle ground? Can we ever? Will democracy survive religion? I don't think so.

      "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

      by Bensdad on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:47:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Gee, that's interesting (none)
        Because I've read the Bible cover-to-cover (parts of it more than once, and parts of it in the original languages), and I've never once found a verse in there that says "God hates fags." Got a citation?
        •  Sure (none)
          It's right next to the Red Lobster chain is an abomination.

          God hates Shrimp

          •  Close, but no cigar (none)
            Yeah, there are those two verses in Leviticus that say men shouldn't have sex with men. But how big of an issue can it have been, considering that the eating of blood gets at least an entire chapter all to itself? Not to mention the fact that Leviticus speaks only of acts, not of orientations, and doesn't prohibit lesbian sex at all. There are some schools of thought which hold the Holiness Code is only applicable within the boundaries of the kingdom of Israel, so as long as I'm not going down on somebody in Jerusalem, I'm fine.
            •  And just because the Biblical writers (none)
              didn't have enough imagination to consider that women might have sex with women, we can do what we like - no prohibiition (teehee)
              •  I rather suspect (none)
                they could imagine it. Some of them probably found the idea just as titillating (no pun intended) as some of my heterosexual brethren seem to do today. But since women didn't count for much in their world-view, it didn't really matter what they did together, as long as they weren't trespassing on some male's property rights.
        •  Chapter and verse (none)
          If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to deah and their blood shall be upon them."  Leviticus 20:13

          Surely you do not doubt that the Bible, and every major Christian religion condemn homosexuality? You can argue that Leviticus and other passages have been misinterpreted, but you would be wrong. That is the way they are interpreted in church, every Sunday, throughout these United States and it is time we stop kidding ourselves about it.

          The Bible is based on law as it was practiced by tribes in the Middle East at the time it was written.

          I have a more European outlook. Middle Eastern religions are tearing the world apart.

          "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

          by Bensdad on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:54:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I ain't Shirley (none)
            And yes, I do believe that the Bible does not per se condemn what we now understand to be homosexuality. Certainly I don't think you can get anything like that out of the one verse you cited (which, as I've already noted upthread, does not condemn female-female sexual relations, only male-male ones). Some sects of some religions do condemn homosexuality--but on very feeble grounds in my estimation. I think my own church gets human sexuality more or less exactly backwards--which is why I feel no compunction whatsoever in ignoring most of what they have to say on the topic.

            The fact that the interpretation you want to put on the seven verses in all the Bible that could even remotely be said to have anything to say about homosexuality is popular does not make it correct. I happen to know a little something about hermeneutics. More importantly, I happen to know quite a bit about Greek--and I can tell you, there's no word in the New Testament for "homosexual," largely because the concept of homosexuality wasn't invented until about a century ago. Up until Magnus Hirschfeld and some of the other early sex researchers realized it was a complete orientation, homosexuality was considered an aberration or a deviation from the normal, heterosexual path. We now know that isn't the case. Ergo, anything in Scripture that doesn't proceed from that basis cannot be a truth necessary for salvation, since it is not first a truth at all. And ergo, I'm not bound to follow an incomplete understanding of human sexuality, even if it is enshrined in Scripture and thundered from more than a few pulpits on a regular basis. God gave me a mind; I can only presume that means I'm intended to put it to good use--including in church on Sundays and holy days.

            •  I am giving you a 4..... (none)
              ...for a beautifully expressed comment. I used to think that the Bible was being misused in that regard, too. I no longer do. I realize that the Middle Eastern tribal religions really did condemn homosexuality, unlike the Greeks. It was, of course, practiced, but it was condemned. I believe this one verse accurately restates the societal view on it. This view has persisted to this day.

              I no longer make any effor to put a "spin" on the Bible, so I can read it my way. Instead, I now view it as a Middle Eastern tract, expressive (and beautifully so on occasion) of a particular culture, in a particular time in history.

              I reject that culture.

              "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

              by Bensdad on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:43:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  God & "Fags" (none)
        God hates fags?  Since when?  They might actually be her/his chosen people for all we know.  
      •  I know Roman Catholics who don't agree (4.00)
        on the more "fundamental" aspects of their widely taught religion, at least from the Pope's thoughts on down.  Not every Catholic seems to take their compiled Bible as fully literal (or, well-understood) teachings that mandate everything from condemning homosexual acts to being hysterical about others making the choices to use contraception, consider abortion procedures as valid, etc.

        I agree with much you've posted in this diary's responses, btw - just respectfully noting that I tend to view religions from the viewpoint of those who follow, which often seems much less strident than the full set of potential pieces of intolerance that are "taught" in the name of those religions today.  By leaders.

        I'm an atheist.  Religion seems fine to me, so long as those professing faith and/or allegiance to such can recognize that "laws" from their god(s) cannot supersede or circumvent the fair governing of humankind over itself.  Religion tends to reflect common cultural values in many places, which is a good thing.  Of course, I recognize that they also can reflect some of worst prejudices, too.  The intolerance aspecs noted in this diary are part of that dark side, of course.

        This leads me to my most significant problem with religions (no, not the seeming mumbo-jumbo aspect of many originating definitions for the various faiths we see): the notion that Believers cannot be challenged easily when it comes to social fairness.  This is because faith in the word or direction of god(s) as taught and accepted can be implicitly impossible to challenge, by the very nature of what "faith" represents.

        One submits to the will of one's god(s), and if you accept a certain interpretation of that will, you can be locked into something which more objectively is unfair to others.  Heck, even Barry Goldwater recognized how something like this can ruin secular government, which I suspect is similar to a theme conveyed in the creation our secular Constitution:

        However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C," and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

        As others have said here, fundamentalism, extremism, etc, are human traits - but, when someone claims that their awfulness is associated with God's will, we may have almost no ability to reason with them due to the notion of faith running to the core of their felt existence.  Question their belief that homosexuality is a sin?  You've hit against a religious brick wall.  Maybe you need to be more tolerant of their religion, huh?  Weasel logic, very undemocratic.

        Some - like my Roman Catholic friends mentioned above - can take a step back and put their faith into a more personally interpreted view of what their religion is truly intending to offer them and others.  They recognize the difference between literalism and interpretation within their own lives.  They also recognize that this is not a Catholic nation, but a nation of human laws, for all different kinds of humans.

        Believers must accept a fair view of humans ruling themselves based on different ground rules than merely those dicated by one set of interpretations of their religion.  Secular democracy can only embrace private religious practice and some reasonable measure of tolerating religions if it remains enabled to usurp the private views held in association with religions, for the good of all, in law.

        Easier said than done, yes.  Your book reference above is quite apt.

      •  You've been stomping around (none)
        this diary repeatedly condemning the "religions of the God of Abraham", apparently believing that these are the principal cause of all evil and danger in our world.  I find that a very shallow viewpoint, frankly.  It wasn't very long ago that an Athiest society (the USSR) was a pretty big threat to world peace, and the Chinese still have quite a large nuclear arsenal.  North Korea is not run by any who practice the "Middle Eastern religions".  When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, it wasn't dominated by Christian, Jewish, or Muslim faiths.  Pol Pot wasn't any of the above.  Try to get a little perspective beyond today's headlines.

        So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause -- Padme

        by dnta on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:54:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Touche.... (none)
          ...but I do see a horrible and disharmonic convergence centering around the Middle East at this point. The President wishes to hasten Armegeddon, Iran wishes to wipe Israel off the map, we are on the borders of Syria, and I think religion underlies the tripartate hatred.

          I acknowledge that evil has expressed itself in other ways, but I think Christianity and Islam take the cake for sheer violence.

          "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

          by Bensdad on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:24:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That convergence (none)
            I would say, has been focused on the Middle East for, oh, about 2,000 years or so...

            So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause -- Padme

            by dnta on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:47:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are proving.... (none)
     point. These religions are incompatible with a secular democracy. I'll do a diary, though. You have a good point about evil elsewhere in the world.

              "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

              by Bensdad on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:27:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  I agree ... (4.00)
    ... although, believe it or not, the religious intolerance on Kos doesn't seem nearly as bad as it was when I first found the place. It got very, very tiresome seeing anyone who made a religious reference of any flavor get slammed.

    The recent outbursts of anti-Muslim sentiment here, though, have been bizarre. Who are te people making these claims? I usually can't stand reading a diary like that long enough to figure out what's really going on. I do know, however, it springs from true ignorance.

    Thanks for posting this diary. I'm glad you're calling attention to this.

    •  This diary is based on a false premise. (none)
      Did you read the diary to which this author referred?

      In it, the diarist was roundly decried for his bogotry.  So contrary to this diarist's point, the cited diary was NOT an example of religious intolerance being accpeted at dkos.

      In fact, it was just the opposite.  But this diarist (who has been around here long enough to know better) propped it up as an example without the example being true.

      It's bullshit.

      I find it ironic that this diary now makes it to the top of the rec list.

      What a joke.

      Is Dick Cheney in favor of torturing Scooter Libby in order to get "actionable intelligence?"

      by Bob Johnson on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:58:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  To be honest (none)
        ... I only made it partway through the other diary earlier today.

        I simply can't stomach that stuff anymore.

        So you might be right.

        Well okay, so you usually are. :=D

      •  Bob... (4.00)
        This is honestly only the latest manifestation of this viewpoint.  Over the past month at least I've been seeing this anti-Muslim viewpoint being repeated over and over in various comments across the site, the thread about the Delhi bombings being one of the most egregious.  I've been dismissing them over and over, but this time I decided I had to say something.

        And I do maintain that the fact that the diary was NOT immediately pulled is an indication of what we'll allow in this community.  Kos has ALWAYS said that there were subjects that should be banned, and I've SEEN diaries that have been pulled for far less.  The fact that the diary in question remained active and that, yes, SOME posters did back up bassman, made me decide to post this.  It's in reaction to a viewpoint I've been seeing repeatedly for the last two weeks here, though.

        "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

        by ChicagoDem on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:12:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You've seen diaries 'pulled for far less' (none)
          Please cite one.  Just one.

          Do you know how infrequently diaries get yanked around here?

          I would be surprised if ANY diaries have been yanked in the last two weeks.  Period.

          If you have information to the contrary, please post it.

          And now you're complaingin because the diary wasn't pulled "immediately?"

          kos pulls diaries (extremely rarely).  I would be surprised if kos sees even 20% of the diaries that pass through this site on a daily basis, they move so fast.

          I don't know what you think is happeneing "behind the scenes" here, but whatever it is, I believe it's a fantasy.

          Is Dick Cheney in favor of torturing Scooter Libby in order to get "actionable intelligence?"

          by Bob Johnson on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:22:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's hard to prove a negative (none)
            Since a diary that's been pulled is not one I can search for.  But I'll email Kos as you suggest above and relay his response if he replies.

            I'm not saying this happens every day or anything, but I do know that it's happened during my time on this site.  This is an OLD example, but the one that sticks out in my mind was one in which the poster insisted on calling Condi Rice a "negress".  I mean there are ideologically-based bannable offenses on this site.  That shouldn't be a point of conflict.  You can't use racial slurs, you can't attack gay people, you can't be disrespectful to women.  Why should attacking whole faiths-- rather than the specific actions of some members of those faiths-- be tolerated when the others aren't?

            "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

            by ChicagoDem on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:56:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  But your diary here is bullshit. (none)
              Complete and utter bullshit.  Now you want to claim it's only about bassman's diary, not the comments.  Well, that's not what you imply with your title and the opening few paragraphs of your diary.

              Your title belies another point as do your comments about the recommends.  (I see you buried an update at the bottom but didn't note it in the title.)

              The fact is, by the very diary you cite, the title of your diary is disproved.  In fact, dkos DOES NOT accept religious intolerance or bigotry.  Quite the contrary.

              And here are all these posters congratulating you on this post because they took you at your word that the other diary was an example of serious bigotry at dkos.

              As for your inane claim that the offending diary should have been "deleted immediately" you clearly show you have no understanding how this place operates.  (Surprising, since you've been around here a long time.)

              The only person who can delete a diary is kos.  Not Armando, not Plutonium Paige, not anyone else.  kos.  That's it.

              So to suggest that ANY diary be "deleted immediately" means you would have to believe that kos monitors this site 24 hours a day, seven days a week.


              This is one of the most irritating and dishonest diaries I've ever seen on here.

              And that's a lie.

              Whatever worthwhile points you have in this diary are undercut by your false framing.

              Is Dick Cheney in favor of torturing Scooter Libby in order to get "actionable intelligence?"

              by Bob Johnson on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:06:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I can't believe you don't see this (none)
                Bob, you make it sound as though the diary I linked was "bassman vs. everyone else".  As though his position was completely unique, and he was simply a run of the mill troll.  Framed that way, of course this diary looks extreme-- it looks like "bullshit" as you say.

                But look at that diary again, there are at least 3 other posters perpetuating bassman's stereotype.  It's not a "troll smackdown" it's a very heated discussion between two polar positions, one of which is VERY offensive.  On this thread, there are MANY others defending that mindset.  Over 1/3 of posters in a poll of more than 900 people say it's ok to practice religious intolerance!  How can you argue that this isn't a problem on this site?  I mean posters on this site are CLEARLY acting differently about group stereotypes here than they would be towards African-Americans, homosexuals, feminists, or virtually any other group.  Would 300 people on this site say it was ok to tolerate racism because people of all races have done terrible things?  I would hope not.  So why the double standard?

                As for the recommenders, you're right that I didn't consider the fact that they may have been recommending the "discussion" rather than the post.  That's why I added the disclaimer last night.  But when a popular poster on this site recommends a post without saying ANYTHING to its content, especially a post like that one which levels a blanket accusation at a community of millions of people, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask why anyone chose to hit the "recommend" button.  It at least deserves an explanation.  But if you'd like, I'll move that disclaimer up.

                And I'll admit that calling for the diary to be deleted "immediately" is hyperbolic in hindsight.  I'll edit that out if you wish.  But I still submit that the way that diary was treated is FAR different than the way we tend to treat blanket generalizations of groups.  A diary spreading racism or homophobia would have been treated exactly like the trolling it is.  A diary spreading religious intolerance was debated over and attracted some support.  And that support is reflected in this thread too.  I don't care if it is a minority of all posters, this is a serious issue, and I'm not ashamed of trying to change their minds.  If we can't have tolerance on a liberal website, I'd say all hope for this country accepting pluralism is shot.  

                "It's like we got Merrill Lynched"- Kanye West

                by ChicagoDem on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:05:58 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Bush just 'named the enemy' (none)

          "The pen is mightier than the sword, but only at a range of greater than five feet" Malaclypse the Younger

          by buhdydharma on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:22:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  We need to be having these conversations (4.00)
    As the left, and as Americans, we need to educate people that Islam, like American Christianity, is not monolithic. That the majority of Muslims in this country voted for Kerry over Bush, according to a Zogby
    That a small minority of radicals don't speak for the vast majority of people.

    Education starts at home, but we need to be having these conversations in our daily lives as well.

    " When the best rulers achieve their purpose Their subjects claim the achievement as their own." - Tao Te Ching

    by ravenastro on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:45:42 PM PST

  •  Sorry for your discomfort. (4.00)
    "I have to say, my faith in this site has been shaken by this diary's popularity, particularly among such leading posters as Maryscott and Delirium."

    Ha ha, I always try to stay away from about 6 or 7 Kossacks at all times. There are a few that offer opinion and thousands that seem compelled to suck up.

    Yours is a pretty good question and I do NOT have an answer. However, I can feel your distress and suffering.

    I have for years leaned toward deism which can be explained at

    I like any thoughts issued by Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, etc.

    Also, I feel that religion that requires imposition without invitation is something I don't favor but that's just me.

    Isn't it strange, a young man growing up in one country will probably be a Christian but if the very same kid grew up in another country he will be a Muslim, in another a Hindu, in another a Jew, etc.

    What is it about religion that broadcasts such fine thoughts but compells people to create such hateful harmful actions of either words or deeds or both?

    What good is anything if it causes such anguish and despair?

    Is that what Jesus, for example, was all about?

    Why doesn't the "gift" of reason apply to religious concerns?

    Given a choice of ten minutes with any three people from any period of time, none would be chosen because of their religious bent but millions would be avoided by such.

    A bomb by a religious nut or a simple asshole is yet a bomb. Strange thing is they both embrace the same lack of reason when building their moment of "truth".

    •  Bahai is good too (none)
      If I were inclined to be religious (which I'm not), I would probably seek the Bahai faith - very peaceful and they believe that all religions are one religion - none of this "I'm right you're wrong, so I'm going to kick your ass and slaughter millions of your people to prove just how right I am."

      Maybe one day I'll walk that path, but not today.

      " When the best rulers achieve their purpose Their subjects claim the achievement as their own." - Tao Te Ching

      by ravenastro on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:54:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Judaism (4.00)
    Here is a page on love and brotherhood in Judaism.

    I am Jewish and I don't hate people of other religions.  I have my own views and respect other people's views even though we disagree.

    I am very pro-Israel and that is a sentiment I firmly feel is not accepted that much around here--at least as of right now.

    I don't force my beliefs on others.

    Evan Bayh 2008
    Miller for KY Governor 2007

    by dsolzman on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:53:58 PM PST

    •  Some muslims hate jews..... (none)
      ...some jews hate muslims, and some think Christians are scary and, perhaps, a little dim. Christians hate muslims and sometimes jews.

      Middle eastern religions are tearing the world apart.

      "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

      by Bensdad on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:42:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would love to see a comment of yours (none)
        that didn't contain the phrase "middle eastern religions are tearing the world apart."

        It's become a shorthand condemnation of Abrahamic faiths that you are using to abort discussion of the points you reply to.

        Also....I'm pretty sure I don't hate Jews, nor Muslims.  Am I still allowed (presuming that I want to do so) to call myself a Christian?

        "Deposuit potentes de sede et exaltavit humiles." --Luke 1:52

        by Scarpia on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:30:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Neither do I.... (none)
          .....sadly your form of Christianity is not in vogue.

          And, yes, I do think the Abrahamic faiths are rending the fabric of Democratic society because, as they are practiced in our frenzied world, they are in direct competition with secular government. The notion of a secular society is being challenged in America, in France, in Iraq, in the Netherlands and elsewhere. As progressives, we need to address this in a reality based way.

          It is only a shorthand because I do in fact believe that the Abrahamic religions are adding tender to the major flashpoints in the world today. We --humanity-- appear not to be able to temper them.

          Also, I am finding it increasingly peculiar that our society would be based on tenets of middle eastern tribes of thousands of years ago. I guess you could say, I am losing my religion (and I had plenty). The fact that Jesus was middle eastern appears lost on America today.

          I think that if our society would embrace secular humanism, it would be a more peaceful world, our children would be learning (is they??), and there would be a greater sense of harmony.

          That's where I'm headed. I respect the rights of Christians, Jews and Muslims to adhere to their beliefs. I fear, however, that they wish to impose those beliefs on Iraq, Israel, Iran, the Netherlands and, of course, the United States. The world will be the worse for it. Ironically, these beliefs all have the same root.

          My theory ---I expect it to be unpopular-- is that through an accident of history, three tribal middle eastern religions that were at odds with one another have been set lose on the world stage where they continue to be at odds with one another. It is tribal warfare writ large. It is not really our fight. It was their fight and we have, without thinking, taken it on as our own.

          I apologize for not believing that Mohammed flew to heaven on a white steed, for believing that Jesus walked on water, or that a burning bush spoke to Moses. I don't wish to offend anyone.

          I believed some of these things until some people flew a plane into the World Trade Center in the name of Allah. Then my world realigned. It did not include a subscription to the Abrahamic religions.

          "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

          by Bensdad on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:30:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  If you can't stand it, why not? (4.00)
    If you can't stand for a religion - which is a set of beliefs organized around an identifiable institution - to be criticized, why?

    What is wrong about criticizing a set of beliefs or an institution?

    What makes religious beliefs off-limits?
    What makes religious institutions beyond criticism?

    One of the biggest problems I have with religious beliefs and religious institutions is the very fact that they assert that their beliefs and institutions cannot be critiqued.

    Whenever an institution asserts it is beyond reproach, you'd better take a second look.

    Whenever an individual jumps down your throat when you dare to question the veracity of some belief, you can take that as an indication that you may be onto something.

    Liberalism is about the principle that nothing is beyond questioning.  Liberalism is not about the contention that we should accept all beliefs as equally valid.  Liberalism is not about the notion that in the service of not hurting feelings we should stop asking questions.

    I may not agree with everything the quoted diarist said, but I believe whole-heartedly that no religion or religious institution's beliefs should be beyond question or reproach -- and that goes for the various strains of Islam (and Judaism, and Catholicism, and Baptism, to take ChicagoDem's rhetorical point seriously).

    If you can't stand the idea of a religion being questioned, maybe you need to examine yourself a bit more closely.

    Irregular Politics are called for in these Irregular Times...

    by theolock on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:54:25 PM PST

    •  Beautifully said. (none)
      As far as I can tell, as long as you debate religion in a proper forum and without trying to personally attack or denigrate your opponent, I don't think it should be improper. The only reasonable argument against it IMO would be that this is an improper forum. I would disagree with that, in that currently in America religion is deeply intermeshed with politics, to the point where whole political factions are defined only by religion, and are trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else. However, if the authorities at this site had decided that religion itself should not be debated here, we would have to respect that. But IMO that would be a mistake.

      You cannot depend upon American institutions to function without pressure. ---Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Opakapaka on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:15:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with everything you say. (none)
      But that diarist was not just questioning Islam in the Liberal tradition. He was making a blanket condemnation of Islam. Questioning is fine and welcome. But sweeping, prejudicial statements are offensive to me.
  •  Seems to Be Intolerance Here Today But (4.00)
    Not so much religious intolerance as intolerance of any discussion of religious intolerance.

    Fox News is a propaganda outlet of the Republican Party - DNC Chair Howard Dean

    by easong on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:54:31 PM PST

  •  I wish your poll had less simplistic choices (4.00)
    I couldn't vote in this poll because you did not address legitimate concerns I have with the way religion is often practiced.

    Actions done in the name of religion are often quite reprehensible. Leaders of certain denominations are often quite reprehensible even though the followers of those relgions can act in quite moral, Godly ways. Many of us here will speak out against those who use religion to commit immoral acts. I, for one, feel no compunction denouncing people who pervert the good that religion can do.

  •  Well... (4.00)
    sadly... religious intolerance exists. It is real and it is unavoidable. We won't avoid it here. It is also something that happens sometimes without people understanding that it is intolerance that they are engaging in. Ignorance of self exists in all of us to some degree. In some of us to a large degree.

    We allow the KKK to march. We don't through nazi's in jail. We allow the communist party to exist. We allow Republicans in office and we allow bush and his supporters to speak openly and freely. Being Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh isn't a crime. So why should we be intolerant of intolerance?

    Personally when I read crap I either refute it or walk away. Depends on my mood at the time and the level of intelligence or dangerousness included in the crap.

    We don't have to accept the unacceptable but I don't think I'll ever tell anyone that they can't display their idiocy and ignorance in public. Matter of fact I'm generally more than happy to tell that is exactly what they are doing.



  •  Feel free to believe (1.33)
    in any fairy tale you wish.
  •  It's not intolerance (3.00)
    It's just that a lot of us aren't superstitious.  I mean, I gave up on the tooth fairy when I was nine.  I know we shouldn't shit on people who still believe in her, but sometimes it juist gets on one's nerves.
  •  well, i gave bassman a recipe... (none)
    ...and a damn good one, too. he took exception to my use of red vs. idaho potatos, but i'm willing to overlook that.

    look, bassman has shown his willingness to argue with anything. i say we buy him a tape recorder and let him argue with that. he needs more recipes, not more attention. i'm sure this diary has made him very happy.

  •  because kossacks are pretty tolerant (none)
    with the religious intolerants, that's why.
  •  Freedom of Speech (4.00)
    it's nifty.  

    try it sometime.

    Here's how it works:  You say anything you damn well please.  Then other people say whatever they damn well please.

    I've heard there have been people who've actually DIED to keep speech free.  Go figure.

    (Just don't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre.  That's considered a no-no.  Oh, and icks-nay on eech-spay about illing-kay the esident-pray.)

    He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot - Groucho Marx

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:06:41 PM PST

  •  You are so cool Chicago (none)
    to bring this up in a diary.

    Although I'm a devout Christian and eschew the violence associated with the tyrants of the Muslim religion at this point, I do not believe it will last. It is an epic struggle thousands of years old.  But civilization is still evolving upward spiritually.

    Christianity has it's tyrants also (big-time).

    Intolernace is rampant on both sides.

    I find myself more aligned with former President Jimmy Carter. Science and God are not diametrically opposed. Science proves God.

    Carter said (paraphrasing from his c-span2 interiew), that our country was founded on a strong separation between church and state, yet we are a religious nation, and those that belittle this fact hoping to force others to their perspective are as intolerant as the so-called religious right.

    I say to all those who are anti-war, study Bhavagan Krishna's writings (specically the Bhagavad Gita) and those of Mahatama Ghandi. As well as the New Testament. Liberals are so apt to say they know what Lord Jesus would have or would not have done, but have they read the Beatitudes.

    Martin Luther King studied these great ones as well as Malcolm X.

    Fascinating topic. Recommended.

    "conservatives are the worshipers of dead radicals".

    by gandalf on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:07:00 PM PST

  •  The results of the poll,... (none)
    ... are a little surprising.  But as to the diary, the point is understood and taken.  As a member of a minority I am especially receptive to this.  We must not exclude out of hand.  Big tent indeed.

    Fear will keep the local systems in line. -Grand Moff Tarkin blogomni

    by boran2 on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:07:33 PM PST

  •  Criticism vs. Intolerance (4.00)
    I submit that criticism is not intolerance.

    I can (and will) make statements critical of the politics of Republicans, right-wingers, conservatives and the like here. It is criticism because I do not agree with their ideas, policies and methods though I support their right to wrong-headedness. I am intolerant of their imposition of said ideas, policies and methods upon me. In other words, I can not tolerate it. I refuse to allow it.

    I will criticize religions and religious ideas, though typically not here, as there is rarely a place for it. As an atheist, I do not agree with religious ideas, policies and methods. I fully support the rights of the religious to hold their beliefs. I am intolerant of their imposition of said ideas, policies and methods upon me. In other words, I can not tolerate it. I refuse to allow it.

    I especially refuse to allow the interjection of religious beliefs into my political process. I am highly intolerant of that on moral grounds, and I will express that intolerance here.


    "Compassionate Conservatives are a lot like jackalopes. I've seen photos of them, but I still don't believe they exist."

    by ZombieOne on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:08:00 PM PST

  •  Speaking only for myself.... (2.00)
    Religion, by which I mean Christianity, Islam, and any other fundamental cult based on the supernatural, is the greatest danger threatening the human race.

    These fantasy-based belief systems should have died out around the middle of the industrial revolution, but for the cash, and power, they generate for the monsters that run them, they have been kept alive FAR PAST THEIR EXPIRATION DATE!!

    Silence equals tacit acceptance. And I, for one, will continue to oppose them.


    Education - Intellectual Honesty - Reality

    •  Fine: (none)
      As long as you show respect for people who think religion is OK.

      But religion has been used for a lot of good, too.

      But this is all about showing respect for religions; not about reviving the God-athiest debates. You might want to post this in a separate diary, because this post has nothing to do with the present discussion.

    •  OK (none)
      What proof do you have that religion is wrong? No history. Show me data that a majority or all religious ideas are wrong. Science, physical ones only, and no philosophy.
  •  Baseless generalities (none)
    and a patent on good intentions.

    What could be the harm in that?

  •  Your poll questions are fairly broad (none)
    There is great variation among the ways religion is practiced.  Some people keep it to themselves.  Others insist on near totalism, and observe no boundaries.

    I am as tolerant or intolerant of religion as I am of any other personal choice.  Don't cross my boundaries and we'll be fine.  Try to deny me my freedom or choice, and we have a problem.

    Maybe a poll written about tolerance for the way religion is practiced.

  •  sorry, its the intolerance BY religions (none)
    frankly, i dont care if a religion calls for its adherents to smear shit all over them and bark at the moon at midnight to get close to their god, as long as they do it in their back yard and not mine, but when a religion is used to bring out the worst in humans, expect it to be attacked.

     the obvious ploy by those who object to any criticism of their religion is the screech of "intolerance." but an objective analysis of the hypocricies of a religion being used by someone in the public square for opressing others is not intolerance of a religion. it is intolerance of having someone using that religion's tenets to slam their minds into your face.

    insert the following:

    Jehovah/Jesus/Buddha/Mohammed save me from your followers.

    you will find that it is rarely the religion itself that is not tolerated, but those followers of any sect that proclaim divine wisdom to the exclusion of others.

    frankly, no one really knows if there is a god, if there is a great sky spirit or cosmic mind, and if anyone wants to believe it, that is just fine and dandy, just don't try to make me believe in what you do or force me to adhere to your social construct that your religion demands. i won't like it and yes, i will be intolerant of your coercion.

    as for me, i worship a green and purple striped tree frog named melvin who lives in the deep rain forests of new guinea, and if you try to disprove my religion, i will call you "intolerant" too.

  •  Thank you (4.00)
    Thank you for addressing this topic.  I've noticed the bashing of various faiths on here for some time.  Certain posters seem to inherently dislike all forms of religion and are intolerant of those of us who choose to religious.  I am a Catholic and I have been offended more than once on here by people attacking my religion.

    I have on problem with sombody questioning a beleif and having an intelligent debate about it, but I get tired of people using ridiculous bigoted attacks in the name of counteracting the supposed bigotry of religion.

    For example, this is an intelligent discussion:  "The Catholic Church is wrong to undermine campaign against AIDS in Africa by advocating against birth control.  Here are reasons X, Y, and Z."

    This is not:  "The Catholic Church is just a greedy, hypocritical, child-molesting, backward institution that is tearing our nation apart.  You Catholics should leave your religion."

    See the difference? Let's try to show some understanding and intelligence and forego the attacks in favor of discussion.


  •  You knwo what I'm intolerant of? (4.00)
    Diaries like this that are based on false premises.

    This diarist begins with the diary title:

    Why is religious intolerance acceptable on DailyKos?

    Then, as an example, the diarist cites a diary which is clearly bigoted.  But the diarist here adds:

    And yet this diary, which applies those exact sentiments to Muslims, is not only still active, but has been recommended by a number of posters.  Posters that I've respected for quite a long time.

    A couple of major problems with that.

    1. The diary in question is "still active" primarily with poster's roundly condemning the author's bigotry (thus, disproving this diarist's title).  In fact, religious intolerance id NOT being accepted in the diary to which this diarist refers.

    2. This diarist assumes that the posters who recommended the bigoted diary did so because they agreed with the diary's author.  But that is not necessarily the case.  Many times diaries get recommended based on the discussion which ensues, not on the merits of the diary, itself.  So for this diarist to assume that s/he knows the motivations of those recommending the bigoted diary only shows ignorance on the part of the author here.

    Also, this diarist suggests upthread that the bigoted diary should be deleted.  I strongly disagree with that sentiment.  The diary in question, while bigoted, resulted in an intensive discussion on bigotry.

    Ultimately, this diary is based on a specious premise.  And the real irony is that it made to the top of the rec list based on that specious premise with, aparently, many people weighing in and taking this diarist at his/her word on what happened in the other diary.

    Go read it before you comment.

    Yeah, I'm intolerant of diaries based on bogus claims.

    Is Dick Cheney in favor of torturing Scooter Libby in order to get "actionable intelligence?"

    by Bob Johnson on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:16:14 PM PST

  •  Religion will always be a problem (3.00)
    I voted no, but I still reserve the judgement (being a student of all religions, literally) to say that personally I feel that religion is a bad idea that has never in and of itself produced anything on Earth besides pain and suffering.  I do know that religion brings good out in people, but some of the most evil people in history were ardent students of various religions.  Religion is too easily used to justify horrible things, and too easily falls into the trap of self justification.

    I may think that intolerance is wrong, but I personally still feel that all religion leads to problems.

    At Fairsley Foods you can shop comfortably knowing your children won't be abducted. Then shipped off to a Pakistani whore house. That's the Fairsley difference.

    by blackertai on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:17:55 PM PST

  •  Religiosity (none)
    will not solve the terrible problems we face.
  •  Your poll questions are ridiculous (none)
    I believe you are conflating persecution of people based on religion with negative opinions of religions or religious institution.
    Let me give you three examples of the latter. I would have no problem saying these in any social setting; if someone considers me to be intolerant of religions due to these views, so be it.

    1. I think the Vatican is one of the most corrupt institutions on the planet---worse than the mafia, and with more blood on its hands. I  think that the choice of a former Nazi as pope--- a man who was directly involved in the gathering of Jews for the death camps in Hungary---incredibly disgusting.

    2. I find one aspect of Judaism troublesome, which is that it seems that one is born into this religion, thereby achieving a relationship with God superior to that of goyim purely through an accident of birth. The relation between ethnicity and religious belief is the great flaw of Judaism, in my opinion.

    3. I don't see the appeal of Buddhism: much like mainstream Catholicism, I find too much emphasis on teaching the poor to be satisfied with their lot rather than striving for more. In practice, this makes it a tool of the ruling class.

    Now, maybe you can refute my position. Fine.
    I would object to you stifling discussion by saying that I'm  intolerant of religious belief.
    I find the premise of your diary wrong.
    •  Question about your comment about the Pope (none)
      Actually, two questions:

      1. The Pope was indeed a Hitler Youth, although I have heard it explained that virtually all German children of his age were required to join. Did being a Hitler Youth automatically equate to being a member of the Nazi party?

      2. I thought that during WWII, the Pope was too young to actively participate in much of anything the Nazis did. Do you have any references which suggest that he was "directly involved in the gathering of Jews for the death camps in Hungary?"

      congratulations on your foreskin -- osteriser

      by bartman on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:26:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  bartman, there are conflicting stories (none)
        The key time period is early 1945, when he was in Hungary. The Austrian Legion units that he is said to have been with were catching the Jews.

        Also, in his earlier service (about which there is no debate), when he was guarding Jews at a labor camp, he said he never fired his rifle because of a sore finger. I find that hard to believe.
        In terms of Catholic teaching, moral adulthood starts at 13.

        Look, I just tossed this out for the purpose of discussion. The facts support what I said or they don't, but it's not an expression of religious intolerance to question what Ratzinger was doing in WWII and how that affects his suitability for the papacy.

        •  I was sincere in my questioning (none)
          I kinda gave up on the Church a couple of years ago.

          I had heard that he was a Hitler Youth, but hadn't heard anything else, and didn't ever look into it more.

          Thanks for the info.

          congratulations on your foreskin -- osteriser

          by bartman on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:39:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  hard to get reliable info (none)
            for events 60 years past.
            I have two words for those who want to give Ratzinger a pass: Kurt Waldheim.
            He was an active Nazi war criminal who became UN Sec. Gen. Those governments which knew this fact used the knowledge as leverage.
            It's quite conceivable that the Israelis know full well that Ratzinger was  involved in killing Jews, directly, and for this reason they support his papacy---because of the power they derive.
            Who knows... anyway, there's no honest man in the Vatican, so what does it matter.

            P.S. Ratzinger is OBVIOUSLY gay, and looks like a pedo to me---seriously. Sometimes you have to go with your gut feelings. I wouldn't trust him with anyone's child.

          •  Actually (none)
            he fought in the German Army in WW II--and deserted.  

            He began as a liberal, almsot a humanist, during Vatican II--but somewhere he took a big turn rightward and began to distrust the ecumenicism and greater role of the laity  that council brought about.

            John XXIII opened a window the conservatives have been trying to close ever since.  This Pope has been one of yher leaders in that attempt. One of hsi first actiosn was to fire the editor of AMerica, a leading Catholic theolgoical journal;--becasue he allowed liberal articles to be published (the priest was all over CNN during the fineral of JP II and the election of this Pope). I am waiting to hear that ANdrew Greeley has been silenced and his right toi publish revoked becasue he hs been critical in his non-fictiona nd his novels of the attitudes of the vAtican hardliners.

            Whether he is a Nazi or not is less important thna his actiosn sicne taking over-- firing anyoen who disagrees even theoretically with him, the notiont hat being gay shgould disqualify you for the priesthood even if youa re celibate (I think the last decison was you had to have ben chase for 3 years before admission to the semianry--NOT requried of hets).

            Had a reasonable man been chsoen, and some of the issues I left the church over solved in a mnner I oculd live with--I might have forsaken WIcca and returned---but with this man on the throen of Peter, and appointing all the cardinals who will elect hsi successor, I know that won't ever happen.

            The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

            by irishwitch on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:49:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  What!!! You don't like Buddhism? (none)
      Buddhism is my very favourite patriarchal religion!
    •  A lot of Catholics (none)
      in AMerica would agree with you.

      I don't se the Vatican as corrupt per se, though obviously the P2/Vatican Banl mess shows that some aprts of it are.  What it really is, is an arstiocracy of welathy Italian conservatives who have run it for centuries and don't like to share it with others. There have been very few non-Italian Popes over the centuries.  ANd these hardliners actually belive what they preach abotu women,s ex, biurth control--and they are also control freaks who are terrified of the "simple laity" beginnign to think for itself.

      The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

      by irishwitch on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:42:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's not. (none)
    You'll note that the responses to that diary universally identify the poster as a troll, and I know that at least one of those who recommended it has a policy of recommending diaries with which they do not agree, simply because the discussion itself is worthwhile.

    I don't think there's much need to be concerned about anti-Muslim sentiment on Daily Kos.

  •  Actually... (4.00)
    though I don't buy the equation of Judaism and greed, I can pretty much agree with ALL of your "example diary entries"--and with good reason.

    Look:  the behavior of people who follow particular creeds isn't theoretical--it's observable.  And it just happens that big religions of the West (at least) are more often than not narrow-minded, self-righteous, chauvinistic toward others not like them, convinced that they have the "one true way", and prone to antisocial behavior up to and including violence to accomplish what they see as "good".  That's true of Christians, it's true of Jews, and it's true of Muslims.

    What it all comes down to is that these are splinters of the same basic religion:  the cult of Yahweh.  Yahweh happens to be a petulant, vengeful, insecure, violent, demanding, intolerant, childish godform whose modality for inspiring "virtue" (as he describes it) is extortion:  do what I say or I'll torture you for eternity.  

    Yahweh is a sick puppy.  The religions that spring from his cult (beginning with Judaism, but now inclusive of Christianity, Islam and some other smaller religions) are suffused with his sickness.  And we have to deal with the ramifications of that in the politics not only of our nation, but of our world.

    Now, I'm sure that lots of people are going to want to say, well, but those are only the fringe people, not the mainstream.  Most Christians aren't fundies, most Jews aren't crazed Zionists, most Muslims aren't the Taliban.  And they'd be right.  But the fact that these radical, violent, humorless, arrogant movements can rise to prominence within these religious traditions is proof positive that their values are twisted.

    A religion that stipulates that it has the only One True Version of God (or Way of Seeing the World) is inherently fucked up.  It is a ripe incubator for fundamental zealotry.  And the angry god of the militaristic Hebrews is the root of the problem.  What kind of god tells its followers to commit wholesale slaughter of those of another culture (say, of Canaanites)?  A psychotic one, that's what.

    Now, you can say that that was all a long time ago, but that's part of the problem:  a religion that is stuck in a centuries-old book can't evolve, and can't learn.  It can't abandon basic principles which have since been proven to be wrong.  Which is how, in this here 21st century, we have the idiocy of debating over evolution.

    Let me be clear:  the problem isn't "religion".  It's THESE religions.  And if that's "religious intolerance", sorry:  I call it waking up, smelling the genocide, and looking at the justifications that the killers are pointing to.

    The blood of the tortured. The skin of the privileged class. The blood of the ruling dynasties.

    by Dracowyrm on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:26:56 PM PST

    •  religion (none)
      is the tool of zealots, not their creator

      I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

      by The Exalted on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:52:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I simply don't agree. (none)
        Religion--not all religion, but religion with faulty values, like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam--creates a structure which allows and provides justification for the rise of zealotry.  If a given belief system's values allow for aggression, discrimination, violence, and chauvinism, these become acceptable actions, and a zealot can inspire the religion's followers to perform them by trapping their causes in the religion's symbols.

        If, on the other hand, the core values of a religion were (for example) nonviolence except in self-defense, kindness, generosity, cooperation and interdependence, environmental sustainability, and a healthy capacity to laugh at one's self, it would be pretty damned hard to draw that religion's adherents into a crusade.

        Religion built on rotten values facilitates zealotry.

        The blood of the tortured. The skin of the privileged class. The blood of the ruling dynasties.

        by Dracowyrm on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:05:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's a pretty good argument to use. (none)
      I reject Biblical literalism, because I cannot follow a god who would command his followers to commit genocide.

      But while I reject such fundamentalism, I still try to show respect for people who follow such a religion. Most of them are not aware of the logical inconsistencies of their faith.

    •  Mostly (none)
      I think it's the books. As a UU, I have several religious books from Buddhism, Daoism, Christian Deism (Jefferson Bible), and some books about Druidism and Cherokee Shamanism. While they have good ideas, I think that any sacred book can be dangerous since it isn't updated to fit modern life and holds ancient biases that have no basis in 21st century Earth.

      While I have no problems with religion (just some beleivers), I do think we should drop all sacred books, consider them to be guides or ancient texts for study, and move back to an oral tradition in which religion can become spiritual and change with the times. We can go from Genesis (God creates Man) to Genesis 2.0 (God sends the design of the iPod to Apple engineers).

  •  Not OK but never banned (4.00)
    When any religion tends toward fundamentalism, true faith is replaced by format.  Radical Zionists, Islamists and Christianists are not practicing a religion.  Zealotry is not faith, it is a destructive conformity where how one is observed by others is more important than one's own observance of God.  Therefore, because this observance is centered on man, God is not present in the ritual no matter how hard the practitioners try to convince themselves and their peers of their piety.

    Criticizing these pseudo-religions is fair game, but backing into generalizations about larger populations based on practices deficient in faith is not.  But overly broad criticism of religion, even if based on these extremeists' non-faiths, cannot be banned from expression.  There is no such thing as a "holy war" but there is no such thing as "free speech" where some speech is excluded.  Faulty speech should be criticized and exposed, never oppressed.

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodet? (Who will watch the watchers?)

    by The Crusty Bunker on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:29:45 PM PST

  •  Observations (4.00)
    An important reason, relgious discords are surfacing of late, is because people have been afraid to openly talk about it for many decades. Many thought that modern education would bring people together but it is just the opposite. People refrain from frank discussion as they are simply afraid to be labelled as racist or communal. This is unhealthy and bound to simmer till it boils over in a catastrophic way. Denial is not a solution, burying the head in the sand is not a strategy. In my mind, there is no doubt that religious intolerance is the root cause of the Arab Israel conflict, notwithstanding claims that centuries ago Jews were given special protection under Islamic rulers. Perceived Islamic superiority over Hindus led to creation of Pakistan.
    Newer the religion, narrower is the outlook. Start from Shinto to Sikhism. Unless all religions respect each other there is no way we will ever have peace. There are fundamental issues involved here which have never been addressed. For example, Islamic scholars proudly proclaim that Islam firmly implanted monotheism in the world. So? What is there to be proud of? How is monotheism supeior to polytheism? How many Muslims took to streets in protest when thousand year old Budhha statues in Bamiyan, Afghanistan were demolished by Taliban? Compare that to the reaction to allegation of Koran descration.
    Yes, it is true that all religions have their moments of shame, but most religions have been able to find ways to reform with time, rein in the bigots. But to justify some of the recent years' barbaric acts by saying that 'every religion does it' is specious at best and if unchecked would have frightening consequences.  

    Lies beget lies. Deception begets deception.

    by Ruffledfeather on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:32:34 PM PST

  •  I am an atheist and (4.00)
    as an atheist I am committed to the protection of all faiths, but that doesn't mean they should never be criticized.  <shakes head>

    The diary in question is crap, but many of the comments are insightful--use them for good and to learn that DKos as an entity is willing to discuss issues larger than Hillary.

    "Sweet Jesus, Buddah, the Doctor!  Somebody help me..."

    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." -Governor George W Bush (R-TX)

    by espresso on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:33:22 PM PST

    •  A-men! (none)
      Exactly my point (see above).  You wouldn't see people on DKos getting all indignant if we were criticizing a religion involving, say, human sacrifice.  They'd say, well, that's not a practice that's justiable, even if it's consistent with a religion.  But the same is true of many, many other things that religions do all the time.  It just doesn't occur to us how awful these things are, because we've always seen them.  We ASSUME that religion has to be that way, because the only religions we see around us are fucked-up, small-minded splinter cults of Yahwah the Teenaged Tantrum God.

      As far as I'm concerned, any discriminatory teachings--including the concept that those who aren't a member of a particular sect are somehow inferior, damned, or need conversion--should be grounds for pulling the tax-exempt status of any religious organization, because it's inconsistent with the principle that all men are created equal.

      But we're not going to see THAT anytime soon, are we?

      The blood of the tortured. The skin of the privileged class. The blood of the ruling dynasties.

      by Dracowyrm on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:58:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I dunno that Religions should (none)
    get any more credit against criticism than a political party does... less in fact... in many ways much less.

    And I like to say that both the Democrats' and Republicans' actions are overweight on the side of avarice and greed wrt the side of "giving and good works for the poor." I think that's something I assert quite strongly.

    I think it's possible such things may be true of Jews? Or they may not... but I think it's likely true one way or the other. And I think it's likely true one way or another about Catholics, Americans, Evangelicals, Methodists, etc... And I think the specifics of any situation will determine said institution's own guilt wrt the charges.

    I suspect the Jews are mischaracterized in large part. Specifically when you look at where the Dem money comes from... NY's upper west side.

    But I don't think it's wrong to say that for example... if white Babtists were to gain too much power in voting, the United States could very well fall to extremism. Because that's pretty much what's happened.

    I happen to think that if black Baptists united against the idea of gay marriage... it might never happen in America. And that would be extremism in my view.

    I think it depends on the specifics of the charge... and whether they pan out, personally.

    I'm not afraid to call a Religion what it is to it's face.

    I'm not afraid to say for example that my own former Sect (the Methodists) are nothing more to me now than a sniveling bunch of gay-hating FREAKS. Nothing more... the lot of em. After the recent news, in my view you either quit or stick. And if you stick and continue to tithe... that's just it for you in my book. Finito Benito... I think this... and I'm not even gay. But I do think Religions need to answer for their policies.

    Becuase they do have policies, yes?

    I think Religions need to be kept in line. Speaking Truth to Power is critical in America... and the SuperChurches are big powers up in here. Big.

    We gotta just face it. Speak Truth to Power. Always.

    U.S. blue collar vs. CEO income in 1992 was 1:80; in 1998 it was 1:418.

    by Lode Runner on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:34:25 PM PST

  •  Informed candor preferred (none)
    The diary you cited was ignorant, and only active due to a vigorous smackdown, as far as I can tell.   We all should say "hey, I really don't appreciate that comment, I hope it's beneath you" to all bigotry.  I read many Kossacks' version of that.

    No one, and no religion, is exempt from having its beliefs challenged or feelings hurt.  Candor at all costs among civilized people.  Salman Rushdie can tell us about that.  While you're right to call bassman on that ugly diary, please see this, too:

    From Index on Censorship:
    "High profile disputes between religious and creative communities in Britain raise the question whether faiths should be protected from offence, curtailing free speech where necessary. Ursula Owen says the answer from Index on Censorship is a resounding no. "

    Are we still routinely torturing helpless prisoners, and if so, does it feel right that we as American citizens are not outraged by the practice? -Al Gore

    by soyinkafan on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:36:35 PM PST

  •  People behave badly, with or without religion. (none)
    Religion just allows them to believe that their bad behavior is sanctioned by the heavens.

    "The cynics are right nine times out of ten." Mencken

    by thebluenomad on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:36:39 PM PST

  •  But... (none)
    there's a lot of truth to each of the examples you posted. That's not intolerance. That's honesty.

    The world would be a better place if it had more Campbell and Russell in it.

  •  I think that all religions (none)
    have a sense of intolerance...and I think it is human nature to be judgemental or intolerant.

    I think it is something we should fight against and I'm glad you brought this to everyone's attention.

  •  If I am correct (2.00)
    the yellow star of david originated in Middle-East and not germany. How many countries have the Hindus invaded and converted them under duress? What is the percentage of Hindus in pakistan between its time of creation and now? Who talks about the 300,000 Hindus who have been kicked out of kashmir to live as refugees in squalid conditions in their own country? Why havent I have heard of any Muslim moderates rise-up in support of their Hindu countrymen? How many moderate Muslims dared to voice their disagreement against the fatwa on Rushdie? Islam has a serious problem and the muslims better wake-up to it. While every religion has its share of extremists, the moderates in islam are too afraid to speak against atrocities committed in their religion's name. In this day and age I'd rather live in any Christian majority country than an islamic one beacuse I know that the moderates in the majority religion will stand for my rights. I just think that Islam is a few centuries behind the concept of "lets agree to disagree".
    •  This statement of yours is false: (none)
      "I just think that Islam is a few centuries behind the concept of "lets agree to disagree"."...

      because in actuality, as is written in the Koran, Islam recognizes two other religions as being 'acceptable' in the eyes of God....

      Christianity and Judaism... people of these faiths are also said to be children of God who, if they follow their religions' respected paths, WILL go to heaven.

      I say this, as a follower of NONE of these three religions, hence, in the eyes if Islam a "Kaffer" essentially, someone who is NOT necc. going to go to heaven according to Islam.

      HAVING SAID THAT, I have NEVER felt discriminated towards by any Muslim, (and I have known MANY) because their explanation of it to me was EXACTLY; "live and let live, if someone of another faith is not trying to forcefully convert Muslims, there will be no conflict"...

      AND your references to the Hindus that have been kicked out of Kashmir... could also go both ways... during the 'partition' in India, BOTH Muslims and Hindus on EITHER SIDE of the India-Pakistan border were forced to leave their homes, everything where it was because India and Pakistan was splitting as it were...

      The fact is, there is truth to what you say, there is always room for more voices, 'Moderate Muslims' as well as others to denounce violent offshoots of Islam (or rather that self-proclaim that they are Islamic) that do horrible things in the name of Islam.

      But again, you have to understand the context in which much of this 'silence' by moderate Muslims occurs.  In countries where 'fundamental' Islamic clerics rule, to object openly would mean death.... as would have been the case if Muslims in Iran at the time of the Ayatollah (spelling sorry) HAD objected to the Fatwa on Rushdie.... same goes for areas in Afghanistan or Pakistan that are controlled by the Taliban.

      In countries such as the US, you ARE right, more Muslims should be denouncing violent terrorist acts publically, but as was the point of the diarist, many Muslims in America still feel UNEASE at drawing undue attention to themselves.

      It is difficult to find a voice when so many around you would discriminate you for it.  Which is why people of ALL faiths need to STAND BESIDE people of the Islamic faith in order to denounce activities of terrorists that create horrible acts in the name of Islam.  AS WELL as denouncing racism towards Muslims that we see here in North America on a day to day basis....

      We must ALL play some role in this, if it is to stop, we must ALL do our part.

      An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind--Gandhi (-9.38, -7.59)

      by hopefulcanadian on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:13:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Huh? (none)
      What about Emperor Dobson and the fundamentalists? If that is not a few centuries behind the concept of "let's agree to disagree," then I want to know what is. The problem is with fundamentalism and fanaticism, not with Islam.
  •  CD (none)
    I'm glad you wrote this diary. I hope it fosters some understanding.

    Christianity has been hijacked in some ways by fundamentalists. Fundamentalists do not believe in social justice or any of the other "christian left" beliefs.

    I see a lot of confusion between religion in general and fundamentalism.

    I'm too disgusted right now to think of a sig.

    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:45:29 PM PST

  •  Religion (none)
    This is one of the great things about America, that one can worship as they choose and if they choose.  The problem becomes when the shepard tells the flock that they must VOTE a certain way or their Deity will reign terror upon them.  No one should tell anyone how they should think or vote.
    I agree that the Shiites in Iraq are too religiously steeped to be able to think for them selves.  They are at least being allowed to worship as they choose.  I don't think this country is ready for democracy.  A Throcracy, yes, but as far as being able to not follow the religious leader they aren't there.  Shrub did not think this through obviously.
    •  asdf (none)
      "This is one of the great things about America, that one can worship as they choose and if they choose."

      Ah yes, and in my case, as a person of Native American descent this has also been true since 1978, when the Native American Freedom of Religion Act was passed.

      Now celebrating nearly 30 consecutive years of religious freedom on the land that was stolen from my if we could just work on getting that land back....

      "I think the President should look across the country and find the most qualified man, woman, or minority."-Trent Lott

      by starkravinglunaticradical on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:59:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  thanks for that perspective (none)
        Right after 9/11, my MD husband was "moonlighting" in an emergency room in northern MN, in a hospital that served Native American reservations.  All the hospital staff were wearing American flag pins prominently displayed on their scrubs.  Even he had one.  But he sensed a certain tension in the air whenever his Native American patients saw the flag pin.  Finally he asked one of them if it was a problem.  The guy said, "Well, it means something different to us than it does to you."

        He never wore the flag pin again.

        New Orleans will never die

        by hrh on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:22:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hats off to your husband for (none)
          having the wherewithal to ask. Most people don't bother.

          For myself, I can only say that the tragedy of the past five years is only magnified through the lens of being Native.

          When Gore won in 2000, I really had hope that the country was going to turn around, that something of what we have lost might have been salvaged--then along came SCOTUS and by now things are looking pretty grim on that score.

          My ancestors (actually on both sides, maternal-Ojibwe/paternal-German-Jewish) turn, indeed, they writhe, in their graves.

          "I think the President should look across the country and find the most qualified man, woman, or minority."-Trent Lott

          by starkravinglunaticradical on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:28:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  any religion is lie (2.00)
    and I cannot endorse lie - there is no god, period!
    Lie leads to war or crimes.
    I cannot forget crusades and inquisition,
    I cannot forget pogroms, genocides against
    jews and armenians and many others.
    I cannot forgive religious people for what they
    did in 2004 to our country.
    And if you learned from history (can you?),
    you should already know that any, and I mean any
    religion, is or will be eventualy intolerant to
    any other religion!

    So PLEASE don't tell me about what I can or what
    I cannot tolerate. These religious freaks, idiots,
    liers and criminals are destroying our country
    right now and we suppose to tolerate them?
    Guess what: they do not and will not tolerate us -
    do you hear me?
    •  You are ignoring something: (none)
      It is evil men who are the problem, not religion. You are ignoring the fact that Stalin killed millions of people, as did Chairman Mao.

      If you decide to be intolerant of all religious people, then you are being no better than the people you claim not to like.

      •  hit to left chik: you want to give them my right? (none)
        no thank you. you are missing the point, I repeat:
        any religion based on lie. I cannot tolerate
        the lie and sequences of lie. You can keep this
        lie for yourself, but in my eyes you are
        associating yourself with EVIL PEOPLE.
        There is no a middle way her: you either
        tolerate liers or NOT.
  •  First you have to ask (2.00)
    is the religion actually true?

    For instance did Mohammad have a direct line from God? Is the Koran the infallible word of the deity and created? Are non-Muslims destined for hellfire etc. Are jihadis going to heaven?

    If one were to answer yes, it would have a very profound impact on one's relationship to the religion. If one were to answer no, Islam is at best just an other religion, and probably among the worst. Why is it among the worst? While it may have moved the Arabs, say, and neighboring societies forward a little in the 7th century, it froze them in place in return.

    The left generally is hostile to religion because of religion's tendency to provide a cover for man's dark side, and for its retardation of the human intellect. Or alternately, it had its place, but Civilization has moved on.

    Hostility towards Islam is not merely anti-religious bigotry, or hostility towards the unknown. Many who are hostile towards Islam look favorably upon Buddhism and other religions. Many despise Islam because they know a lot about it.

    I suggest a fact-finding mission for any of you interested in real-world Islam: go to Saudi Arabia, go to Iran, go to Yemen. You might even try discussing your views on peace, homosexuality, and other topics... but I don't recommend it.

    •  Well, this is true, but why stop there? (none)
      The same is true of Christianity and Judaism.

      The blood of the tortured. The skin of the privileged class. The blood of the ruling dynasties.

      by Dracowyrm on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:11:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I've been to Saudi Arabia (none)
      many times, and to Yemen, and to many other Muslim countries, and I know many Arabs and Muslims.  They are all very tolerant and open-minded and friendly.  Most of them practice their religion with humble piety, without judging or condemning others.  Of course there are plenty of intolerant and heinous Muslims, including leading clerics in a number of places such as Iran.  But please don't invite people to go to the Arab world to learn how intolerant Muslims really are, until you've been there yourself and can speak from something other than stupid ignorance.

      So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause -- Padme

      by dnta on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:07:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So: (none)
      You decide to become prejudiced against Muslims as a result?

      I suggest you are guilty of tunnel vision and lump all Muslims in with these reactionary regimes. You think you know a lot, but you don't.

      You are never going to change people's attitudes by showing bigotry towards them in return. Not all Muslims share such attitudes towards peace, same-sex rights, or other topics. By lumping them in with those who do, you are forfeiting any meaningful chance of achieving change.

  •  new (none)
    Who has never said (or thought) something mean and hateful about some religious group? I'm not proud of it but I have; probably all the people reading this have too.  If you think you haven't, think again. (Hint, think about the group that pisses you off the most and remember the last time you sounded off about "them" in an unguarded moment.) Self-awareness is a powerful thing. It's hard being a complete jerk over and over again if you see yourself doing it.

    Do we need to be "cruel, inhuman or degrading" to win the war on terror?  (David Cole)

  •  It is sick that only 61% oppose... (3.50)
    ...religious intolerance. I know that most of you are just, tolerant people, but it seems as if a rather large slice of Kossacks hate religion.

    I can understand why many people have a poor perception of religion. It has been hijacked by the right wing for personal gain. Anyone who voted that no religion should be tolerate should read some of Jim Wallis' writings - he is a man who truly understands how religion and morality can be applied in a non-disciminatory manner to politics.

  •   May God, Allah, Yaweh, Vishnu, the (4.00)
    Transcendent Ultimate Which Has No Name bless you for this diary.

    We just celebrated Eid al Fitr, the feast ending Ramadan, with my brother-in-law on Friday.  A Muslim in the kindest, most generous, most understanding, most admirable sense, my b-i-l has been a priceless source of education and understanding about all things Islam.  

    Religious devotion doesn't kill people, religious fanaticism does.  And it comes in every flavor.  

    George W. Bush deserves a fair trial.

    by CJB on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:58:23 PM PST

  •  Oh what a slippery slope (none)
    dualism can be. Many comments to this diary has in some way utilized it further a point of contention or criticize some one or some thing. What happens as a result is a conversation based on two or more opposing views where none of them can be correct or true. Truth lies outside our dualistic experiences and not among them. My hope is that conversations like these lead us to truth and it's important to understand the way to get there. So keep it up but be mindful  of whether or not we are getting closer to truth.

    Just my view...

  •  That diarist was being an enabler. (none)
    He is being an enabler, because it was the attitudes of people like him that allowed Bush to have a free pass in attacking Iraq. After all, if Islam is such a wicked religion, then why should we oppose the war in Iraq?

    Even Bush is not stupid enough to go as far as this diarist. But because of prejudices against Islam from people like this diarist, we are in Iraq right now, and we have no way out, given the bullheadedness of this administration.

    Islam is a religion of peace, not of war. Most Muslims would repudiate both the actions of the French youths and the actions of Bin Laden. Mohammed, the founder of Islam, presented it as a religion of peace. He looked at the constant feuding between Christians and Jews over whether or not Jesus was the Messiah, and he stepped in and said it didn't matter. What was the point in all these petty quarrels, he asked. Just submit to God.

    Furthermore, the Qu'ran designated both Christians  and Jews as "People of the Book" with equal rights to Muslims. Muslim leaders, for the most part, designated other religions they came in contact with as such as well.

    In addition, I challenge that diarist and his supporters to find one instance of disloyalty by the Muslim community here in this country. I also challenge that diarist to find one instance of a Mosque here in this country issuing statements of support for Bin Laden or the French youths.

    •  Hold on (none)
      I wrote the diary and I went to many antiwar marches in the run up. I trust no religion because of the power they and those who manipulate them can have with uneducated people. Take for example the republican party use of christianity.  
      •  Hold on: (none)
        So, you would ignore the Stalinist killings of millions of people?

        It is evil men who are the problem, not religions.

        Furthermore, I know you don't support the war. But many people like you who are prejudiced against Muslims were among Bush's biggest cheerleaders. Like the man in the recommended diary who called the cops on a Muslim just because s/he was talking in Arabic.

  •  I'm an equal-opportunity intolerator (none)
    but let's have a read of their sacred texts, and do some comparative analysis.

    I don't have money on Islam in that particular contest. Sorry. But I'm sure you'll cover me.

    The dark at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming age.

    by peeder on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:03:02 PM PST

  •  False choices (none)
    It isn't about "tolerance", it's about free speech. Racist idiots can post all day, but only by "doing something" about it would you be doing wrong.

    "The sun is not yellow, it's chicken." -Dylan

    by gjohnsit on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:04:38 PM PST

  •  Talk about terror against Muslims! (4.00)
    Just look at the recent history of Bosnia. Bosnia, a country with a long-lived Muslim population, largely secular, and living peacefully with Christians (and the few Jews left). The country was a model of tolerance. Interfaith marriages of Christian and Jew were not uncommon, similar to many mixed interfaith marriages in the U.S.

    Then the majority Christian populated state of Serbia (Eastern Othodox)* and Croatia (Roman Catholic)* fought a war of annexation after the disintegration of formerly Communist Yugoslavia. I cannot say whether the mass population in either Serbia or Croatia supported this. I doubt it. But the leadership of the new capitalist states carved out of Tito's old Balkan federation fought a war of near-genocide against the Muslim dominated democratic republic of Bosnia-Herzogovina. The Bosnian leadership made a pact to let outside Islamic fundamentalists come and fight in Bosnia, but they did not give them operational control. Nor were they successful in winning over the moderate and liberal Bosnian people.

    The massacres that then took place in Bosnia, killing many thousands of Bosnian Muslim men,women, and children are by now well-known and the matter for war crimes trials. Many Serbian and Croatian casualities occurred in this terrible war.

    But the effect was to fatally wound the most liberal Muslim population on the planet.

    In Iraq, too, you see the U.S. going after the most secularized Arab country, after perhaps Lebanon. The imperial powers of the U.S. and Britain have been pushing the Arab people, and then later the various peoples that make up Arabia and Pakistan, toward Islamic fundamentalism via political support. And with their support of the revolt against the Soviet invasion, significant military and financial support was also given to the fundamentalists.

    What a convenient foil against which the reactionary American president can pose as a radical democrat!

    By the way, those rioting in France, reporting has made clear, are largely young, poor immigrants and children of immigrants, largely Muslim by religion, though many if not most would identify themselves as French first. The riots are caused by poverty and economic discrimination, and is more about racism than religion.

    Religious intolerance is unacceptable and even dangerous. August Bebel is supposed to have declared, "anti-semitism is the socialism of fools." One could say that anti-Islamism is the Democracy of Blowhards and Criminals.

    *Religions are noted for demographic purposes only. They are meant to show the absurdity of naming any conflict as purely religious, not an endorsement of such a view. Religious disputes, while real in the minds of those who live and die by them, is always a cover for underlying social and class conflicts, and used to protect the current political order.

    [I posted this first on the other diary mentioned in the diary, but which I don't want to promote -- hence no link]

    "I am ruminating," said Mr. Pickwick, "on the strange mutability of human affairs."

    by Valtin on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:05:05 PM PST

    •  comments (none)
      In the Balkans, there has been a perpetual tug of war between Islam and Christianity. In Kosovo, before Milosevic started the ethnic cleansing of Albanian Moslems, there was a long history of Albanian Moslems forcibly displacing Christians. The latest manifestation of violence was Christian on Moslem, but the history goes both ways. The very existence of a Moslem population is an artifact of past invasions.

      In Iraq the US 'went after' the most secularized (perhaps) Moslem country, but this really meant lifting the lid from a Pandora's box of nationalism and fundamentalism. The secularism appears to be a very thin veneer imposed by dictatorial fiat.

      Concerning France, some of the problem is racism, and some of it isn't.  As I pointed out below, in Britain, Sikhs have high average levels of achievement, and Moslems have low levels. This is not the result of religion (although conservative and inflexible attitudes may contribute), but poverty and resentment are a potential powderkeg given the us-and-them nature of religion.

      •  what Valtin said is true (none)
        according to all my friends in the former Yugoslavia.  They all said the same thing to me, and here is the paraphrase: "There was no reason for us to be fighting.  We had worked together, lived together, married each other, for years, for CENTURIES.  Of course we had different religions, different traditions, but that wasn't a big problem.  We were all getting along perfectly fine until a few people who wanted to grab political power decided to exploit these differences and re-animate these religious conflicts that had been dead for hundreds of years.  It's wrong to say that 'Tito was keeping a lid on everything and when that system went away, hostilities broke out again'.   In fact there hadn't been any conflict for HUNDREDS OF YEARS.  This was a huge fake!"  

        My friends are beyond pissed at the commonly-accepted news coverage of the Balkan wars - "centuries of ethnic strife," blah blah blah.

        As one Yugoslavian friend of mine said, who lived in Boston for two years, "You have plenty of ethnic strife too, and it's been going on for centuries."

        New Orleans will never die

        by hrh on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:39:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I was discussing Kosovo in particular (none)
          There was a 1987 NYT story on Kosovo, published well before the explosion of the Balkan conflict:

          Ethnic Albanians in the Government have manipulated public funds and regulations to take over land belonging to Serbs. And politicians have exchanged vicious insults. Slavic Orthodox churches have been attacked, and flags have been torn down. Wells have been poisoned and crops burned. Slavic boys have been knifed, and some young ethnic Albanians have been told by their elders to rape Serbian girls.
          The goal of the radical nationalists among them, one said in an interview, is an "ethnic Albania that includes western Macedonia, southern Montenegro, part of southern Serbia, Kosovo and Albania itself."

          Now the situation in Bosnia was probably rather different, as you point out. But Kosovo seems to have been an ethnic powderkeg, and the Serbian cleansing/genocide seems to have been a response so some ugly provocations from the other side. Not that this justifies the Serb actions, but it does demonstrate that there is a recent history of vicious conflict that Milosevic tapped into. During the conflict, I read interviews with Serbs who sputtered in rage that the world was unaware of this history.

          I was in Central Europe for some of the time all of this was happening, and I recall being horrified to see Western Slavs taking the Serb side, calling the Albanians crooks and gangsters, but now I understand that there were injustices on both sides and that the story wasn't as simple as it is usually portrayed.

  •  Religious Tolerance and Censorship (none)
    The more important point is that this is a forum for discussion. While the comments on Islam undoubtedly show ignorance of the religion, it's better to have an honest discussion (as long as it's civil) than to try to choke off debate.

    If someone feels that Islam is a "dangerous religion" then it's up to the dKos community to respond. I think we have the collective knowledge to show the facts that contradict this statement.

    I'm worried that those who think that religious intolerance should never be okay on dKos think that statements on religion should be censored. It's one thing to oppose them, even heatedly, in a discussion. It's another to try to keep them off the website.

    Liberal Thinking

    Think, liberally.

    by Liberal Thinking on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:07:13 PM PST

  •  what are we supposed to do about it? (none)
    Bad diaries are ignored.  Bad comments are troll-rated.

    Censorship is for RedState.

    Will someone PLEASE give him a blowjob so we can impeach him?

    by Leggy Starlitz on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:11:38 PM PST

  •  criticism of religion (4.00)
    There is sort of a Scylla and Charybdis quality to this debate. The original diary in question really offered nothing but a frothing across-the-board condemnation of Islam, whereas the argument that Islam is religion of peace and that the problem is limited to a few extremists is just another feel-good pablum.

    I think that there are big problems today with Islam, problems that Christinaity has largely thrown off after the Enlightenment.

    • Much of Islam is still a proselytizing religion.  Islam is right not just for its adherents, but for everyone else as well. Christianity has managed to stifle this urge in most (not all) of its manifestations, and religions like Judaism or Hinduism tend toward self-contained isolationism.

    • Islam is a strongly unifying faith. This provides an easy way for adherents who are oceans apart to break the world up into a tribalistic Us and Them. And provides a way for a local injustice to snowball into something global.

    • Islam's self-perceived correctness runs into the reality of material and political inferiority. Or in other words, the fact that the infidels have all the money and power despite living in sin is a source of resentment, especially when infidel ways invade Moslem lands.

    • A strong sense of moral correctness that is at odds with the host culture works against assimilation - and yes, assimilation is a good thing. You shouldn't move to a place if you aren't willing to marry the natives.

    • The combination of poverty, lack of education, traditional morality, and us-and-them tribalism among immigrant Moslem populations is a social powderkeg.  Some of this is the fault of the host culture, but it isn't all a question of racism.  In Britain, Sikhs are above average in income and educational attainment, but  Moslems are below average.

    • Support for Bin Laden is not limited to a small minority.  This survey shows that it ranges from 2% in Lebanon to 60% in Jordan.

    • We may be biased against Moslems, but the above survey shows that Moslems are more biased against Christians and Jews.

    So unlike the original diary, I don't think that Islam is intrinsically bad.  I do see it as a vast social tribe that typically does not share many of our liberal values, and that we have to think long and hard about ways to avoid friction. I really, really worry when I see us meddling in the Middle East, and I really, really worry when I see a stream of Moslem immigration into Europe.
    •  It's Muslims, not Moslems. (none)
      That is what they call themselves.

      Furthermore, the article you link to shows a huge drop in support for Bin Laden since 2003. That is welcome news, and I am appalled that people like the original diarist would continue to promote bigotry. His attitudes would serve to stop the tide of opinion shifting against Bin Laden.

      Even if they are backward like you describe, they are catching up in a hurry. There are democracy movements springing up everywhere in the Middle East. No, I am not a Bush convert; these movements have been doing their work for a long time, and he deserves no credit whatsoever.

      •  nitpicking, and errors (none)
        Moslem and Muslim are both transliterations of an Arab word, and are both correct - really, there is no such thing as a 'correct' transliteration. The only reason why the latter is sometimes disfavored is because a misproncounciation of the former is similar to the Arab word for 'oppressor'.    But I pronounce it without the long 'O', thank you very much.

        And the article still shows alarmingly large support for OBL in some countries, which was my point.  

        I wish the democracy movements lots of luck, but between the fascist kleptocracies and the popularity of the Islamic alternative (recall the Algerian elections), I don't see terribly much hope here. I think that democracy is meaningless without an underlying social liberalism and tolerance of pluralism.

  •  Did you grow up with religion? (none)
    Most of the anti-religious people I know were brought up in a strictly religious family. Some were  Catholic, some were Mormon, some were Baptist, some Methodist, etc. And now they are rebelling against what they were taught because they can see that much of it is not true, and that the people around them are not good examples of the faith they were brought up to believe.

    I was raised as an atheist, and I became a Catholic only a few years ago. Even though I think both our former and our current bishops are goofballs (I'm live in Phoenix), that doesn't make "love your neighbor" a bad idea. Since I had no religious upbringing, I think it was easier for me to see that that Christ's core teachings (in the "Gandhi-type area" to quote Eddie Izzard) are pretty good. All the tacked-on stuff added later is mostly window-dressing, but some people need the window-dressing to keep them interested. The problems happen when the window-dressing is ALL that interests them, and the message is lost.

  •  hummm...another diary (none)
    .makes me so glad I am not very religious..generally when I feel the need to pray to a higher power or spirit or spirits, whoever or whatever he/she/they/it may be, I just go sit in the woods and say what i want to say.

    Unlike most of the population I am not smart enough to figure out God or whatever it is we call God.

    But it's interesting watching people even dumber, or as dumb, or somewhat smarter, or even very smart, not be able to do it either.

  •  This Diary Exponentially Increased (none)
    the audience to the diary this diary is complaining about.

    In effect, this diary megaphoned the other diary, creating an echo chamber.

    Very interesting.

    •  well, (none)
      I don't know how many people had recommended it before, but now it's a grand total of seven people.

      So either people have hastily UNrecommended it, or it's a tempest in a teapot.

      New Orleans will never die

      by hrh on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:36:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They May Not Have Recommended It (none)
        but they certainly commented on it and this diary piqued curiousity over it and linked to it.

        I'm not implying anything by all this, I'm simply saying that this diary certainly aggrandized the other by merely existing!

  •  I just finished (none)
    an interesting read on this very topic. It is called: "The end of Faith; religion, terror and the future of reason"

    The author makes a compelling case against tolerance of any religion which seeks to convert or destroy. These include: Christianity, Islam and Judaism. His opinion is that these religions require their followers to accept that there is only one God, this God inspired a book which is the only truth and that truth must be followed. Anyone who chooses not to follow is an infidel that must be destroyed. Basically, that any of these "new" western religions are by their nature intolerant of any other religion. He gives examples of the destruction and killing perpetrated by each of these religions throughout history and says that terrorism should accurately be called islamic terrorism.
    I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but it is an essential read in my opinion.

    Freedom isn't free, but the richer you are, the cheaper it gets.--me

    by rcvanoz on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:29:54 PM PST

    •  Yes, but: (none)
      Not all people of these faiths seek to convert or destroy. In fact, Judiasm is very much against such behavior, and there is hardly any of that. And I would argue that many Christans, even the more fundamentalist types, are not comfortable proselytyzing people.
      •  Uh, yeah... (none) Israel, you don't get a chance to convert, as, say, you did if you were Jewish in 16th century Spain.  No, instead, if you're NOT Jewish, you're a dog to be slaughtered, to have your house bulldozed, your land stolen, or whatever other atrocity is deemed necessary to facilitate the "chosen" population.

        And that's so much better, isn't it?

        I'll say it again:  there is no Yahwist religion that is rooted in values that are not destructive.  

        The blood of the tortured. The skin of the privileged class. The blood of the ruling dynasties.

        by Dracowyrm on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:26:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  can't exactly tell where you are (none)
      coming from, but:

      Anyone who chooses not to follow is an infidel that must be destroyed.

      Islam encourages its practitioners to preach in order to spread religion, but doesn't insist on the destruction of all who oppose its teachings.  I'm not a muslim, however, many people I know are....

      I know it wouldn't be hard to refute this, and history easily has...sadly, the biggest example of convert or else is Christianity in the 15th-19th centuries.

      Another poster commented on Islam's historical religious tolerance, so I won't repeat it.

  •  Religion and democracy (none)
    The founders were right:

    Religion and politics can not be allowed to mix.  Together they are or will become lethal.

    Each has his/her right to whatever religious beliefs (s)he chooses. One thing, however, unites all religions. They are FAITHS that are only rarely subject to human capacities for reasoning, logic, and evidence. As such, they have no place in a humane, democratic polity.  Only in private affairs.

    All religions are abused torturously by their adherents.  Sometimes more often, sometimes less -and this is the nature of the beast.

    Hence, we must respect the right of each to have a faith, whatever it may be. However, any religion that holds itself equal or superior to - or a good substitute for - reason, facts, logic, and evidence - and probably all of them do - is a menace to the freedom of one who is in thrall to that religion.

    In no case is religion - any religion - or religious belief a sound basis for public policy or public discourse in a democracy.  Religion can never be the basis for a humane majoritarian platform or political agenda in a pluralistic democracy.

    Religion is part of that human craziness we cannot expel and we must accept that it can lurk deep in the heart of each of us.  That is where it should stay.

  •  Thanks to the the diarist (none)
    For pointing me to the original diary, so I could recommend it.
  •  Well... (none)
    There is a limit to everything. And fact is, even atheists have some ideas which could be called spiritual, faith-based or lunatic, depending on which side of the bed you got up on (and superstitious, I guess).

    The issue here is NOT RELIGION: it's fundamentalism on the one hand, and ignorance, gross distortions, generalizations and prejudice on the other (often they go hand in hand).

    I am totally opposed to religion in many settings, but absolutely supportive of everyone's right to determine how they choose to lead their lives, and where they park their spirituality. Every religion has done good and evil in their history--some have longer histories and more of each. Some are a little better (buddhism, taoism, perhaps) but anything which becomes a rigid ideology is bad in and of itself.

    But, once again, this isn't about religion. We should tolerate anything anyone wants to say about it, provided it's logical, factual, open-minded and not full of those gross distortions and racist generalizations.

    And if it is, it shouldn't be tolerated whether it has anything to do with religion or not.

    "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

    by thingamabob on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:39:58 PM PST

    •  No--you're not thinking this through (none)
      What if one of the religions being considered was "traditional Mayanism", complete with hacking out the hearts of selected captives?

      As PC as it may be, it is not only wrong, it is intellectually lazy to wave a magic wand at religion and say "all religions are okay and who are we to judge, but we can talk about religions' impacts on politics".  

      The fact is that both religion and politics are about people's belief systems, and belief systems drive behavior.  Behavior is something we all have a right to judge when it causes suffering and destruction, and the behaviors indulged and encouraged by religions of "The Book" have caused more suffering and destruction than any other single historical force on the planet.  They drove the Crusades, they drove countless wars, they drove witch crazes, they drove colonialism, they drove the genocide and enslavement of the native peoples of Africa and the Americas, and the most religious places on Earth are STILL the most barbaric in their behavior toward other humans:  the United States, Israel and the Islamic world primary among them.  The issue IS religion:  specifically, THOSE religions.  Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

      I know that many on DKos are subscribers to various religions connected with this history, and I'm sure that legacy is important to you, but face it:  just because you love your uncle doesn't mean you don't have to look at it when your uncle turns out to be an axe murderer.  The evidence of the negative impacts of the religions of the Hebraic lineage is overwhelming.  In fact, the only thing that gave rise to the liberal state and the concept of individual rights was the collapse of the power of such religions in the West, with the rise of the Age of Reason.

      The blood of the tortured. The skin of the privileged class. The blood of the ruling dynasties.

      by Dracowyrm on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:39:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  One good point, a lot of blather (none)
        Your point about how religions validate/call for certain forms of behaviour deemed unacceptable by society is well taken. Not that I said anything to disagree with it, but certainly any religion which encourages unlawful behaviour should be itself unlawful.

        As for immoral, well, that's a different story, in'it? I mean, morality is driven for many people by religious or quasi-religious belief. Unless you're a psychopath you have a system of values based on some deeply-held convictions, even if you're an atheist. As a secular humanist I feel strongly about the rights of all human beings; as an environmentalist I feel strongly about the need to protect the entire eco-system. In the end, all of us must take decisions every now and then which are a calculation about which injunctions must be ignored when in conflict--it's unavoidable.

        The rest of your comment I don't get, inasmuch as it echoes and expands on points I raised in the comment you claim to disagree with. Of course religions have been the vehicles through which much slaughter and mayhem have occurred. And yes, the very notion of religion is troubling when it means a rigidity of thought and unwillingness to accept contrary views or evidence. But it is people who choose to participate, the rigidity, ignorance, insensitivity and total lack of empathy which are the problem. This is why not all Christians are still out to kill all Muslims and Jews. Not because they're inefficient, but because they have no interest in doing so.

        "Religion" when it means simply a set of spiritual values is not a problem. When it means a totalitarian system of rigid ideologies, discrimination, disenfranchisement (after all, not only does one get "membership" in religion, one usually gets some sort of "exclusivity" (note: Jesus didn't save us atheists, apparently, nor pagans, nor the great unwashed)), and active incitement of violence against other groups it is the worst evil. This includes corporatism and greed as religions, since they share many of the same attributes.

        I don't object to anything in your comment other than it suggests you didn't really read mine, and ascribed views to me which are pretty much the opposite of what I said.

        Please read more carefully next time.

        "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

        by thingamabob on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:08:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I think we should be tolerant of other's... (none)
    personal beliefs, but the imposition of a communal doctrine by which people must live and conform too, under the auspices of spirituality is simply destructive. I personally am not religious, I guess those who are religious would call me an atheist or agnostic. I have never needed a God to tell me how I should live. I'm kind of intolerant of all religions, and the reasons are that I don't understand the need for an organized religion. IMO, people generally are civil and good to each other, not because their religion tells them to be, but because it is easier to be civil than to be uncivil. Also, Religions in general can't be examined without somebody calling you intolerant. Really, religions are an artifact of the social norms of the time. Will anybody in here defend David Koresh and the Branch Dividians? What did he do that was so bad? He defied the social norms of our society, and so in that right we will judge him to be bad or evil or whatever, but the fact remains that none of us have the moral superiority or highground to call his religion evil or bad. We're not afraid to examine his religion and call him a cultist because the popular sentiment didn't afford him the immunity from examination that large religions get. We examine the living situations and human rights of various places throughout the world. And where we find disagreement we think our government should intervene. We think men and women are created equal and should have equal rights, and we won't tolerate governments that don't offer equal rights to both sexes, but in reality, we are instituting our brand of society on someone else. Who are we to make such a claim? We do this all the time, everywhere in the world, from spreading democracy and fighting communism, to waging economic warfare against places who have abhorrent labor conditions. Most religions have been credited with both horrible and splendid events, but the underlying society is actually the responsible party. Using religion as a means to get society to adopt "better" and "fairer" laws and norms could be said to be a noble thing. Using religion to persecute and silence opposition could be said to be a perversion of religion's purpose. But, who decides what is "better" and "fairer"? The people in power control the social norms. I think the best person to rule the world is a non-theist, someone who doesn't have a preconceved notion or set of beliefs. Someone who uses social science for making decisions that affect the society. All that said, I think any opinion or belief whether based on observation or dogma, is fair game. Is it intolerant for me to attack someone's belief set, that I disagree with? We all do it everyday against republicans.
  •  In the church of Mammon... (none)
    we do not condone thew killing od non-believers, for then, how can we continue to exploit their labor?

    A Senator YOU can afford
    $1 contributions only.
    Masel for Senate
    1214 E. Mifflin St.
    Madison, WI 53703

    by ben masel on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:48:40 PM PST

  •  My problems with the (none)
    Religiosu RIght is that their doctrine --that salvation is by faith alone and works matter not, that they MUST convert everyoen to their flavor of the religion--drives them to want legislation to force their religious views ont he rest of us. They do it, many of htem, out of the best of motives: to save peopel from eternal danmation--ignorign that living a good life isn't enough to Save you, by their own relaigion's teaching (I guess they think if you live by Christian morality, it'll  be easier to win yopu over).

    It's not the RELIGION that bothers me, but the POLITICS inspired by it.

    I had a friend call me a bigot when I pointed ou thta, living down here in the bible Belt, I see the Religous RIght as extremely dangerous becasue I KNOW what it is like to live under their rule (she, natch ahs ONLY lived in Japan, Hong Kong and Tokyo, has never spent mroe than 4 days down here, and MAYBE knows one fudnamentalsit on mroe than a nodding in the halls level). KNOWING your opposition deosn't mean you are a bigot--it jsut means you recognize where you're gonna have to fight.

    The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

    by irishwitch on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:54:25 PM PST

  •  A point I've made to other folks in the past, (none)
    tolerance and acceptance are two very different words. Interactions taking place between folks of different beliefs need always be tempered by this understanding.

    My first "0". I feel so.... unworthy. - JW -

    by John West on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:06:57 PM PST

  •  Damn (none)
    Well my opinion of Maryscott Oconnor has certainly tumbled to 0.
    •  Before you judge... (4.00)
      Perhaops you should ask her why she recommended the diary.

      This dumbass diarist as well as other posters in this thread have no fucking clue why she or anoy of the others recommended it.

      You assume she recommended it because she agrees with the diarist.  How do you know she didn't recommend it because she thought that the discussion that ensued, with nearly every poster calling out the diarist for his bigotry, was something the entire community should see?

      The truth is, you have no idea.  You're just jumping to the conlcusion this diarist wants you to.

      This has to be one of the most dishonest diaries I've ever seen at Daily Kos.  And that's saying something.

      What a flaming piece of shit this diary is.

      In fact, the diary pointed to by this diarist disporves the very title of this diary.  The truth is, nearly every popster in the other diary condemned the bigoted diarist.  So there was little "acceptance of religious intolerance" as this diarist claims.

      This piece of crap should be taken down by the diarist.

      Is Dick Cheney in favor of torturing Scooter Libby in order to get "actionable intelligence?"

      by Bob Johnson on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:27:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well said (none)

        Fairness is a liberal value

        by diplomatic on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:13:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This diary is truly one of the most irritating (none)
          ... and dishonest diaries I have ever seen here.  And that's saying something.

          What a load of shit.

          And then, this diarist sugests that the offending diary "should have been immediately deleted."

          As if kos monitors the diaries 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

          Very few diaries get deleted here.  And kos is the only person who can delete a diary.  Not Armando, not Plutonium Paige, no one but kos.  And the guy very, very rarely deletes anything.

          I've seen people here CLAIM a diary was deleted by kos only to later find out that the diarists deleted their own diaries.

          This diary is total crap.  It posits a point based on an unsupported, specious premise and then far too many folks here take the diarist at his/her word about what went on in the other diary and cheerlead this thing as if what the diarist claims is true.

          Talk about disingenuous and dishonest.

          What a load of crap...

          Is Dick Cheney in favor of torturing Scooter Libby in order to get "actionable intelligence?"

          by Bob Johnson on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:20:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I've never seen you so upset! (none)
            I would be against deleting any of the diaries.  But maybe it is time for a diary rating system at least.

            Fairness is a liberal value

            by diplomatic on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:26:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think religious intolerance is a worthy topic (none)
              ... for discussion here.

              But what bothers me is that any worthwhile point the diarist may have on the subject is undercut by the bogus framework s/he applied to the discussion from the onset.

              First, the diarist implies that those recommending the offending diary necessarily agree with the offending diarist.  Not true.  But, as represented by so many comments here (such as the one that started our thread) the dkos posters who recommended the offending diary have been viciously smeared by the insinuation of this diarist.

              Add to that the fact that the title of this diary, Why is religious intolerance acceptable on DailyKos?, and the comments that opened this diary imply that the offending diarist was cheerleaded or "accepted" is just comeplete bullshit.

              So, now, this diarist has not only smeared some posters here with the recommendation insinuation, but then gone on to smear the entire community from implying exactly the opposite of what his/her example shows.

              And what happens?

              Human nature being what it is, many posters to this diatry will not click through to the offending diary but will take this poster at his/her word... which is completely misleading.

              So, yeah, I'm intolerant... of posts like this that are based on untruths.

              Is Dick Cheney in favor of torturing Scooter Libby in order to get "actionable intelligence?"

              by Bob Johnson on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:35:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  But there is (none)
            a lot of interesting debate within th thread of this diary and to remove the diary would be to remove a whole variety of subjects touched upon.
      •  asdf (none)
        You can spin it however you want, but I find your scenario highly implausible.
        •  As someone who has recommended some (none)
          pretty controversial borderline trollish diaries in the past based on the discussions in the comments, I think you might want to hold your zeroes until you have all the facts.

          Recommending a diary does NOT always mean you endorse its premise. At least that's has not always been the case with my recommendations.

          I'll reserve judgement, which I will not pass because, frankly, it doesn't really matter to me what other people think about any religion. The only thing that matters to me is what I think and what I practice. And I've come to the point where I realize that what I believe is nobody's fucking business but my own.

          Even if said diary was recommended because the person agreed with the diarist, so fucking what? You and others so inclined get to paint a "RI" on their foreheads with your big "religious intolerant" brush, and can torment them from now until the end of time for their beliefs and prejudices. My, what fun! Woooeeee!

          But painting away without the info on why they recommended the diary says more about you than it does about them. And that's not spin.  

          "As you get older, you get less willing to buy the latest version of reality." Leonard Cohen

          by mentaldebris on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:20:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, because you say so. (none)
          Many, many times I have recommended a diary precisely because I have disagreed with the author and thought the discussion which ensued was worthy of exposure to the larger community.

          Please don't apply your small-minded standards to everyone around you.  Or go ahead and look like a fool.  You seem quite content in that role.

          Is Dick Cheney in favor of torturing Scooter Libby in order to get "actionable intelligence?"

          by Bob Johnson on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:05:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Who are the fucking idiot morons (none)
    who voted that "All religions breed hatred"?

    New Orleans will never die

    by hrh on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:25:54 PM PST

    •  Isn't that amazing? (none)
      I was surprised the number was so high.  I voted for never and eventhough I defended someone on that other diary, I definitely did not recommend the diary itself.

      Fairness is a liberal value

      by diplomatic on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:54:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  i'm not surprised (none)
      DailyKos attracts a lot of far left types who are no more tolerant (or intelligent for that matter) than the far right.    Its extremism in the name of "liberalism" no different from the extremism in the name of "conservatism."

      Personally, I voted "Yes, but only for the wrong faiths" because I think this poll is an idiotic push poll.

      This diary is a case in point - it almost strikes me as the same sort of idotic whitewash "liberals" have when looking at say, Native American history where Native Americans are put on this idealized pedastal not out of anything intrinisic to the history or culture of any particluar Native tribe, but out of a reaction to their feelings about European colonials.  

      Same thing here: we see the history of "Islam" idealized, merely because one particluar group of Muslims, after conquering particular territories, didn't burn down the temples.  Alexander the Great did the same thing - does that make him equally super cool?

      I don't think the religion of Islam or the history of Islamic peoples in general are any more violent than ours.  I just don't think their history is any less violent.  Its all human history - its filled with acts of violence, as well as peace.  Of migrations, expansions, invasion, colonization.  Its tribes conflicting with tribes, resources fought over, clashes of ideas, of beliefs. of ethincities, and countless other reasons.  I'd rather we look at it with a clear and rational eye - than some lefty gloss just to counter right-wing gloss.

      PolisPundit - An Agenda for a New Liberalism

      by goblue72 on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 11:07:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think the problem (none)
        is that there are a lot of people on DKos who claim to be atheists because it's a "kool" thing to do.  Part of the campus-Marxist posing.

        The history of Islam is a lot more progressive, in terms of tolerance of other religions, than Christianity.  That's just the way it is.  Remember who started the concept of the Crusades!

        But I agree with you in that the bad things about what we view as "religion" are in fact the bad things about us as human beings.

        New Orleans will never die

        by hrh on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 11:39:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree (none)
          With your opinion that the history of Islam is more tolerant of other religions than Chrisitianity.

          Yes, during the European Middle Ages, Islam was generally more tolerant of the religions of its conquered peoples than Christianity was - generally.  On the other hand, as another poster noted, during Islam's rise, thousands of Buddhists were forced to convert at swordpoint, so I don't see how exactly that is evidence of tolerance.

          And today, the Christian countries of the West are far more open and tolerant of other religions than Islamic countries.  (Hell, we even have a very well enforced amendment in our Constitution about that topic.)  And that's part of the respective histories, too.

          Its all history - not just the parts that occured a thousand years ago.

          PolisPundit - An Agenda for a New Liberalism

          by goblue72 on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:18:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •   it's true (none)
            Islam, as exemplified by its most powerful political entity EVER, the Ottoman Empire, was far more tolerant of other religions than the Christian Empire.  My husband's family, Sephardic Jews, were run out of Spain by the Catholics during the Inquisition and found shelter in Constantinople.  The sultan at the time said something along the lines of "If your country is so incredibly stupid as to make you leave, we are happy to benefit from its stupidity."

            They lived there in peace and prosperity for hundreds of years after that.  

            If they had stayed in Spain, they would have been killed or horribly persecuted.

            What's not clear about that?

            New Orleans will never die

            by hrh on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:52:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Moorish Spain (none)
            was an oasis of tolerance in the middle ages.  Jews, Christians and muslims lived in peace.  NOWHERE else could that be found.  NOWHERE.  SIcily was pretty good too, and Islam had a large influence htere as well.

            In Christian Europe, jews were routinely persecured or expelled.

            If I had to live anywhere in Europe inthe middle Ages, it owuld ahve been Ireland or Iceleand (for the high status of women and the emphasis on bathing) or Moorish Spain.  

            The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

            by irishwitch on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:23:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  what i find interesting (none)
    one of the folks people hold up as a democrat who stood up for what he believes in was also the most unabashed of southern baptists.  and carried a very large chunk of that vote.

    i'm not religious myself.  i just find it interesting.

    "I don't think Feingold and Clinton are really that far apart on Iraq." -- Howard Dean, 10/23/05

    by BiminiCat on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:35:34 PM PST

  •  Didn't recommend that other diary (none)
    But it did have some good discussions and we obviously need to have some more of them because 33% of the poll is saying "all religions breed hate"

    That apparently includes Buddhism, that very hateful and violent religion. (/snark)

    Fairness is a liberal value

    by diplomatic on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:56:27 PM PST

  •  And the award for the lamest poll... (none)
    goes to...<drumroll>


    (Did Karl Rove help you with this?)

    Seriously, this sounds like it came straight from a rethug push-polling script. It's lame-ass as hell and doesn't belong here.

    Amputees make better lovers.

    by homogenius on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:06:38 PM PST

  •  It's not "religious intolerance" (none)
    It's "religious disrespect," which is perfectly okay.  We tolerate religions but do not respect them, because they're based on dishonesty.

    All religions rely, to some extent, on faith.  Faith means holding an absolute belief in something despite little or no evidence that it's true.  So, by definition, faith is lying to oneself about the odds of something being true.  That's not a virtue; it's a terrible form of dishonesty.

    The superior alternative is to reject faith:  to be honest to yourself about what you do or do not know, and to believe in answers to precisely the degree that the evidence merits.  This is not, as some people suggest, "another form of faith."  It is the wholesale rejection of a flawed way of thinking.  It means admitting the simple truth:  "if you don't know, you don't know."

    We can disrespect any religion because they universally promote the dishonest value of faith.  And there are numerous other reasons to disrespect organized religions in particular:

    • They cause major wars over matters of superstition (whose holy grounds/artifacts belong to whom).
    • They stand in the way of scientific progress, both on the research front (stem cells, environmental laws, etc) and in the public arena (evolution education, big bang, etc).
    • They empower ambitious lunatics to completely control many other people through their faith, resulting in everything from witch burnings to car bombings.
    • In some countries (especially Islamic states at the moment, though most major religions have been guilty of some form of this) they allow their superstition to control individual freedoms and rights in ridiculous ways.
    • They divert the public's attention from important problems.

    All these problems arise from a brand of dishonesty that advertises itself as morality (yet another layer of dishonesty!) and you want us to respect it?  

    Tolerate, sure.  But don't expect kind words or respect for it.

  •  As a Unitarian Universalist (none)
    I have no problems with religion, just the believers.

    I live in the South. Christainty ain't bad but some of the beleivers can be. Same with UUism (which drove me from UU church). Still UU but ronin style.

  •  religion (none)
    The purpose of religion should be to provide help and comfort, material and spiritual, to those who need it.


    I love and respect those who do this, preferably without too much proselityzing.  Soup kitchens, working in hospitals, etc.

    I have little patience (I would use "tolerance") for the others.

  •  Dangers of irrational thought (none)
    in the service of domination...

    It doesn't matter if its religion or some secular ideology, ideas of any variety can lead to destructive ends.  Ideas can also lead to very constructive ends. It depends on the values guiding them.  One of the values that ought to guide them, for example, is the pursuit of the secular sense...through rational means simultaneously guided by other ends.

    There's a great book called WITHIN REASON, I forget the author's name, but it does a great job of defending science against the postmodern critique.  As we all know, science, as much as religion, has been harnessed to some pretty nefarious ends (e.g., nuclear weapons, eugenics in this country, and the Nazi doctors).  Science is great for discoverinig truth, even if that truth is always partial and subject to change. The fact is, that science helps us better understand the world in order to act upon to produce change of one kind or another. The direction of that change is never determined by science itself, just like the questions asked by science are typcially not driven by science alone.  Funding drives research, and funding is always tied to a predetermined understanding of which values science will be tied to.  

    We choose to research lots of things that do very little, if anything, to solve some of the most pressing human problems. Tons of money get spent advanced weapons systems.  Why?  Not to defend ourselves, but to expand the reach and advantages of emprire.

    Many of the values that might guide science in other directions derive from religion, but we have to be careful because, in the end, no one can definitively determine what THE message (value orientitation) of any religion is.  There's no way to prove any one version of any religion to be THE most TRUE version of a religion. There are as many ways of being "Christian" as there are ways of being Moslem.  So, the problem with religion lies in the fact that orthodoxies are seldom arrived at through rational consensus.  Orthodoxies are imposed, typically in order to ensure the continued priviledge and power of those who impose them.

    With the author of Within Reason, I'm a firm believer in the power of rational thought, but I also recognize that rational thought, in the pragamatic world, never operates independently of some value system.  

    This is where we really need to have a never ending, transgenerational conservsation: what values do we want to embrace to define ourselves and our institutions, to guide our rational endeavors? In keeping with the principles of the Inclusive Democracy Project

    I think we ought to start with the paradoxical values of autonomy & community in the service of the ultimate value of democracy.

    As Takis Fotopolus writes:

    In the political realm there can only be one form of democracy: what we may call political or direct democracy, in which political power is shared equally among all citizens. Political democracy is, therefore, founded on the equal distribution of political power among all citizens, the self-instituting of society. This means that the following conditions have to be satisfied for a society to be characterised as a political democracy:

    1.      that democracy is grounded on the conscious choice of its citizens for individual and social autonomy and not on any divine or mystical dogmas and preconceptions, or any closed theoretical systems involving natural or economic `laws', or tendencies determining social change.

    2.      that there are no institutionalised political processes of an oligarchic nature. This implies that all political decisions (including those relating to the formation and execution of laws) are taken by the citizen body collectively and without representation;

    3.      that there are no institutionalised political structures embodying unequal power relations. This means, for instance, that where authority is delegated to segments of the citizen body for the purpose of carrying out specific duties (e.g., serving in popular courts, or  regional and confederal councils, etc.), the delegation is assigned, on principle, by lot and on a rotational basis, and it is always recallable by the citizen body. Furthermore, as regards delegates to regional and confederal bodies, the mandates should be specific.

    4.      that all residents of a particular geographical area  (which today can only take the form of a geographical community), beyond a certain age of maturity (to be defined by the citizen body itself) and irrespective of gender, race, ethnic or cultural identity, are members of the citizen body and are directly involved in the decision-taking process.

    Moreover, though Enlightenment ideals may have evolved from religious beliefs, it's is preceisely in those ideals that I think we can find some real solutions to our current mailaise.

    I love the smell of impeachment in the morning!

    by gabbardd on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 11:35:12 PM PST

  •  No, I don't tolerate Chaffee and Bloomberg (none)
    Chaffee and Bloomberg are very moderate Republicans.  They believe in many of the same things I believe in... they do some good work.  

    However, they are part of an evil institution filled with fundamentalist Republicans.  Their decision to include themselves in such a poisonous group, their decision to add to the numbers of an oppressive, corrupt, cult of bullies, their decision to financially support these neo-con nutjobs -- makes them part of the problem.  Makes them just as bad.

    Can I trust that intelligent Kossacks can figure out why I posted this in this particular diary?

  •  I didn't see much approval. (none)
    I tallied up the first 40 or so comments and saw three that might have been considered approval of that diary.  

    I'm actually more concerned with the idea that DailyKos should ban posts just because people disagree with them than that diary.   At the very least there were some interesting comments mixed in among the troll recipes and insults.  

    "God created men. Samuel Colt made them equal."--Colt Firearms Motto.

    by cevad on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:31:50 AM PST

  •  Moral Relativism is wrong! (none)
    The notion that we must only judge others within the context of their own culture, and that all cultures are morally equivalent, is just plain silly.

    Some of the major components of Islam as it is practiced today include (but are not limited to):
        * Theocracy over secular government
        * Greatly limited rights for women
        * No toleration for gays

    There are some sects and branches of Islam that don't veer off into the disturbing, but the disturbing branches control most of the middle east, and are making headway elsewhere.

    Faith is no excuse for not respecting human rights. Fundementalist Islam should always be opposed, just like Fundementalist Christianity, and Scientology.

    (Scientology should be opposed because it's just dumb -- see for details)    

    (-7.38,-2.51) 76% of dKos readers think I'm a secret wing-nut operative!

    by Gustavo on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:33:41 AM PST

    •  Dumbass (none)
      It's cultural relativism that says all cultures are equal and that thigs must be taken in that context (true and basis of social sciences, why do you hate American sociology?), not moral relativism.

      Americans need to become educated and fast. No wonder we elect people like Bush and support parties that would prefer to have us live in 3rd world conditions.

  •  This is a silly diary!!! (none)
    Sorry to say. Not because discussions such as the one youve engendered dont have meaning, but because of your title. Your title is very misleading, I dont know why you chose it. It speaks not to the linked diary but to the responses to it, in recommendations and comments. I clicked the link to the offending diary, and it was recommended by about a handful of people, and the comments - about the first 30 or so that I looked at - were all reproachful, refuting the premise and the ignorant/simplistic nature of that diary, some with antitroll recipes to boot. So the title of your diary just doesnt deliver what it promises.

    I am not saying such a title might not pertain to this site, on such a topic, at some time. It's not a defense of the site Im making. But not this time. Very odd. Why did you choose a title that made it seem so?

    Should a liberal Dem blog be driven into "safe zones" by a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

    by NYCee on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:54:04 AM PST

  •  christopher hitchens.... (none)
    ....right after 9/11 and before he started imbibing in the magic koolaid, said that islamism, judaism and christianity were the true axis of evil.

    that was the last time i agreed with hitch.

    Crime is contagious....if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law. -- Justice Louis Brandeis

    by FemiNazi on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:56:32 AM PST

  •  it's a question of choice (none)
    It would be intolerant to hold something against someone over some element of their being they cannot control, e.g., gender, race, birthplace. How does one rationally challenge or criticize that which is inherent to a person? However, religion is not such an inherent trait. It is a choice, like politics or clothing style. One can indeed challenge, criticize, lambast, satirize, or even vilify religious choices because such decisions have been voluntarily made by moral agents. The distinction between inherent and chosen traits is critically important to the integrity of a free, secular democracy.
  •  Great diary (none)
    ChicagoDem I missed both of these. I did read the Jerome a Paris diary about the situation in France and sadly it contained many posts expressing similar views. Thanks for your diary and your perspective.

    What are ya gonna do? Just keep saying it and saying it and....maybe you'll convince some people. Please don't turn your back on Kos or get too discouraged. You've got a lot to say and I for one welcome your voice.

  •  your shallow, skewed poll (none)
    deviously eliminated the one important option:

    Yes, there should be free, open nd honest dialog about religions who are exerting influence on our government, media and education.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site