Churches are going to be institutions

[Dimentio]

If Obama (http://obama.3cdn.net/c2c74198bb57fc007c_e906mvllj.pdf) wins the election.

Brilliant...

Not even Bush got that idea.

[Dros]

Wow. What a piece of shit.

[Bud Struggle]

Whatever it takes to get elected!

Actually, as you might expect: I like the idea. People like and trust their religions more than they do the government. The religions have deep roots in the local communities--more so than the government. It's a reasonable way for the people to get financial, social or psychological help if they need it. On a utilitarian level it will work quite well. The churches also have all the grassroots personel--most of them working for free, that the government doesn't have.

Faith based work among those that need help is by far the best allocation of resources (till of course the revolution comes.)

And most charities seperate their evangelization from their work in the general community. I know Catholic Charities does. As does Lutheran Charities. As does Jewish Charities of America. And a host of others.

There are a lot of religious charities that are set up in such a way as to differentiate directly from the sectarian religious mission of the church and the social/charitable mission of the church.

One need only look at the number of religious hospitals who receive funding in the form of medicare and medicaid to treat patients. And religious proselytizing is not part of their mission. Any of you who have gone to an emergency room at a Catholic Hospital or been treated otherwise in one know very well that about the only religious indoctrination you are going to get is having to see crucifixes and various icons of our faith. The same is true of Jewish hospitals, Presbyterian hospitals and others.

I have always had two problems with Bush's approach. 1. It was not needed because there are many examples of faith-based charities which are legally set up to separate themselves from the spirituality side of the the Church and already receive public funds. 2. It was intended to give money directly to the churches themselves, not to a separate entity which can easily be tracked and regulated by the IRS and other agencies to ensure that religious prosyletizing was kept out.

I don't think we as a society want to diminish the role of religious based charities. But as a pluralistic society, we do want to make sure these charities work within proper constitutional guidelines if they are receiving public funds. This not only can be done but is being done and has been done for decades.

I also see nothing wrong with a religious charity wanting its employees to share its values about its mission. It only makes sense to me.

As with so many other issues, Obama seems to understand the reality of what is going on and is providing a nuanced and thought-through proposal for dealing with the types of issues and problems we face.

His point of how vital these entities are for the urban poor is valid. Why should we not want them to coordinate their efforts with public agencies as long as they keep their proselytizing in check? Hell, it is being done in almost every large urban area now anyway.

We need to move on from simplistic categorizations of people and organizations, placing them in acceptable/non-acceptable columns and find ways we can use the resources and commitments of all sides without damaging our broader social and political values.

[Pawn Power]

Obama announces grants for faith-based services

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/01/barackobama.uselections2008


Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama today reached out to evangelical voters and proposed a programme of federal grants to faith-based social service organisations, including churches, Jewish synagogues and mosques.

This is like Bush's faith-based initiatives.

[Dimentio]

The problem with that system is that it could enstrengthen the legitimacy of religious movements in the conciousness of society. And then we are not only talking about your local catholic church, but also the religion which holds the greatest amount of charity in the US, namely the Church of Scientology (Narconon, Crimonon, Youth Against Drugs, etc...).

But one thing I do not understand is the lack of secular charity organisations.

[Pawn Power]

Inside Obama's Christian Crusade
Obama has made a major effort to woo evangelicals, but at what cost to church-state separation?
http://www.alternet.org/election08/90162/

[534634634265]

its not that similar to Bush's initiatives.

edit: read the whole article

"Fearful of offending liberal voters devoted to the separation of church and state, the Obama campaign stressed this morning that recipients of federal grants would be barred from proselytising to the people who receive services, and would be prohibited from discrimination on religious grounds.
They would be forbidden from discrimination in hiring, as well. The federal money could only be directed to "secular" programmes, the campaign said.
"I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea," Obama said, "so long as we follow a few basic principles."

[Random Precision]

Merged.

[RedAnarchist]

Well, at least it might put off the "progressives" who are in awe of him.

[More Fire for the People]

It is a sign of hubris and chauvinism for communists to believe that Christian, or Islamic, Judaic, what-have-you social workers cannot facilitate the emergence and expansion of working class power & resistance. The belief that all churches = bad is rooted in white nationalist beliefs of the superiority of [mostly white] scientific [read bourgeois] understanding of the world. Churches (mosques, synagogues, etc.) of the oppressed did not embark on programs of eugenics, racialist theories of evolution, etc. but rather it was white, bourgeois scientists. The point here is not that churches = unequivocal good and scientists = unequivocal bad: but their are churches rooted in the oppressed & victimized—just like there are scientists rooted in the oppressed & victimized—and, conversely, there are churches rooted in the oppressors & the victimizers—and scientists rooted in oppression and victimization. Communists, as critical analysts of the proletarian movement, must always be able to distinguish between oppressor groups and oppressed groups: otherwise all is for naught.

And secondly, I am much more concerned about Obama's recent statement about undocumented workers.

[Bud Struggle]

It is a sign of hubris and chauvinism for communists to believe that Christian, or Islamic, Judaic, what-have-you social workers cannot facilitate the emergence and expansion of working class power & resistance. The belief that all churches = bad is rooted in white nationalist beliefs of the superiority of [mostly white] scientific [read bourgeois] understanding of the world. Churches (mosques, synagogues, etc.) of the oppressed did not embark on programs of eugenics, racialist theories of evolution, etc. but rather it was white, bourgeois scientists. The point here is not that churches = unequivocal good and scientists = unequivocal bad: but their are churches rooted in the oppressed & victimized—just like there are scientists rooted in the oppressed & victimized—and, conversely, there are churches rooted in the oppressors & the victimizers—and scientists rooted in oppression and victimization. Communists, as critical analysts of the proletarian movement, must always be able to distinguish between oppressor groups and oppressed groups: otherwise all is for naught.

Fuckin' "A" :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

[534634634265]

I am much more concerned about Obama's recent statement about undocumented workers.

you mean this one?
"aich tee tee pee://obama.senate.gov/speech/060523-floor_statement_4/"
seems to me like hes saying undocumented workers should try and find legal work in our country. share your concerns.

am i a capitalist oppressor if i don't want an illegal immigrant from mexico getting the landscaping job i love because he'll do it for less?

[Dean]

It is a sign of hubris and chauvinism for communists to believe that Christian, or Islamic, Judaic, what-have-you social workers cannot facilitate the emergence and expansion of working class power & resistance. The belief that all churches = bad is rooted in white nationalist beliefs of the superiority of [mostly white] scientific [read bourgeois] understanding of the world. Churches (mosques, synagogues, etc.) of the oppressed did not embark on programs of eugenics, racialist theories of evolution, etc. but rather it was white, bourgeois scientists. The point here is not that churches = unequivocal good and scientists = unequivocal bad: but their are churches rooted in the oppressed & victimized—just like there are scientists rooted in the oppressed & victimized—and, conversely, there are churches rooted in the oppressors & the victimizers—and scientists rooted in oppression and victimization. Communists, as critical analysts of the proletarian movement, must always be able to distinguish between oppressor groups and oppressed groups: otherwise all is for naught.

And secondly, I am much more concerned about Obama's recent statement about undocumented workers.

Well said!

[chimx]

I agree, well said. I don't see what the problem is really. He is going to make it so community organizations and religious groups can more easily apply for federal grants to do charity work -- things like homeless shelters, building homes for the poor, food banks, etc. Campaigning against such things because a religious person does it is silly.

[eyedrop]

It is a sign of hubris and chauvinism for communists to believe that Christian, or Islamic, Judaic, what-have-you social workers cannot facilitate the emergence and expansion of working class power & resistance. The belief that all churches = bad is rooted in white nationalist beliefs of the superiority of [mostly white] scientific [read bourgeois] understanding of the world. Churches (mosques, synagogues, etc.) of the oppressed did not embark on programs of eugenics, racialist theories of evolution, etc. but rather it was white, bourgeois scientists. Way to try to slander people. A scientific understanding of the world has produced much better results than a theological understanding. Let's not forget that it is biology (a science) is what disproved the racial concept. Offcourse the ruling class will use it to support their ideology, but the church has proven to be a much more willing tool. Has there ever been a "racists" war which haven't been approved and supported be the majority of the clergy? Religious institutions has to much blood on their hands to slander a science.



The point here is not that churches = unequivocal good and scientists = unequivocal bad: but their are churches rooted in the oppressed & victimized—just like there are scientists rooted in the oppressed & victimized—and, conversely, there are churches rooted in the oppressors & the victimizers—and scientists rooted in oppression and victimization. Communists, as critical analysts of the proletarian movement, must always be able to distinguish between oppressor groups and oppressed groups: otherwise all is for naught.

And secondly, I am much more concerned about Obama's recent statement about undocumented workers.

Religious institutions has hardly been neutral or progressive (without some exceptions) throughout time have they?

[534634634265]

@eyedrop

so, if im a catholic priest who gives everything i have to helping those less fortunate than myself, and i pour my entire life into this mission, im still a dirty catholic oppressor?
if you can't see the good that comes from grassroots religious organizations then you can't see the forest for the trees my friend. it isnt always about what grand organization your part of. if someone does good for their fellow man, support it. just because you feel butthurt about the role of organized religion doesn't mean people in that religion are incapable of doing the right thing.

[eyedrop]

By condemning religious institution i condemn every person in it? What I reacted at more here was that he was insinuating that science is bad, while religious institutions has historically almost always supported every mass-murder there has been. Religion can fit into whatever one want it to while science to some degree has to be dictated by facts.


Then you are a good person. Communism isn't about supercharity anyway. It is about people that are sick of being ruled by incompetent assholes, we want to rule the world ourself. The people shall rule.

[534634634265]

your a fool. he said science and religion are NEITHER BAD AND GOOD.
the nazi's used the "science" of eugenics, as did the US and most other civilized countries.
if you think that science saved humanity from racism i would direct your attention to the mountains of research stating that blacks are dumber, more ignorant, less able, and in all ways deficient to the white race.
you reacted to what you wanted to react to, without really reading everything he said.
show me these mass-murderers with church support and i'll show you MEMBERS of a church who stood to make FINANCIAL gain from those mass murders. short of an official religiously sanctioned killing of a people like the crusades (sure to be your example) , religion has not backed the mindless genocide of innocent people.

[eyedrop]

Yes but religious ideology is easier manipulated to fit the ruling ideology than science, since religious ideology isn't grounded in reality and can be made to fit whatever one likes with ease. Science is harder to manipulate.

Ever heard of the witch burnings, sure there are other reasons too but religious institutions was very supportive. Or the other crusades over to eastern Europe, slauthering of the 3 differing ethnic groups in France, repressions of the muslims in Spain, 7 year of torture of the scientist Giordiano Bruno.


As an institution religion is interested in persisting and spreading, and that means supporting the ruling class.

[Pogue]

Why is this bad? Alot of people are religous and enjoy religion, and Obama's policy doesn't seem to look like it will advance capitalism, fascism, authoritarianism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

[534634634265]

Yes but religious ideology is easier manipulated to fit the ruling ideology than science, since religious ideology isn't grounded in reality and can be made to fit whatever one likes with ease. Science is harder to manipulate.
really, cuz ive got this study that say 482% of quoted scientific faxts are bullshit numbers made up on the spot.

Ever heard of the witch burnings
not related to the church. only crazed, paranoid, and possibly tripping lunatics burned witches.



sure there are other reasons too but religious institutions was very supportive. Or the other crusades over to eastern Europe, slauthering of the 3 differing ethnic groups in France, repressions of the muslims in Spain, 7 year of torture of the scientist Giordiano Bruno.
if your only argument is the catholic churches activities seeking FINANCIAL gain then your argument is fairly weak.



As an institution religion is interested in persisting and spreading, and that means supporting the ruling class
a religion is only interested in spreading if it believes in proselytization. what about buddists, hindu, jains, sikhs, shintoists, etc? your lack of education on the topic at hand is showing. any religion that seeks to proselytize and grow is going to embrace the most powerful people it can in order to facilitate that growth.

[More Fire for the People]

Religious institutions has hardly been neutral or progressive (without some exceptions) throughout time have they?
Yeah, who is this guy?
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/mlk.jpg

[534634634265]

i lol'd
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
seriously though. the attitude amongst leftists that religion is pure evil is so trite.
its so easy to get into the mindset where you assume no good or knowledge can come from a religious source. i lived in a christian homeless center for a little over two months and the most "religious" experience i had was that i was OFFERED a copy of the new testament and psalms.:rolleyes:

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

Religion is a dangerous and subversive influence, it promotes the acceptance of blatant and nonsensical unreason exactly why the fuck do we need yet another reason for our key ruling idiots with all the money to give the scumbags who perpetuate these blatent and ancient lies funding for their self-serving PR "humanitarian" efforts in the wider community.

Don't get me wrong if I ever get seriously sick in the US I have no problem with being in a catholic hospital and sucking up tax money like a sponge when I claim back the medical bills I just don't see why a totally pointless and potentially unclean crucifix on which filth and pathogens can collect should be in anywhere near my bed nor do i especially wish to risk being treated by people who'll believe it's god's will and let me die if I suffer complications.

The concept a potential elected head cocksucker of the USA proposing that he'll get busy throwing money at these deluded scumfucks is one that chills me to the bone. In western society, that same society that prides itself on it's intelligence and reasoning (well I know a fair number of people east of the atlantic do at least) how can we feel safe letting the very same arseholes who told us we had plague because we hadn't invaded the middle east recently treat our ills?

I'm fine with people being humane to each other I don't promote killing young children against walls by heavy blows with a sledgehammer and I'm simply saying that religion isn't required to do that it's perfectly possible to fund a hospital without bibles and guilting people into donation.

[Unicorn]

am i a capitalist oppressor if i don't want an illegal immigrant from mexico getting the landscaping job i love because he'll do it for less?
No, but you are a xenophobic bigot.

[534634634265]

No, but you are a xenophobic bigot.
i spoke in sarcasm, but you make a valid point.:(
in my work as a landscaper i hear an almost constant flow of perjoratives and slurs towards anyone trying to find a job in this country who is here illegally. mexican migrant workers provide, to my untrained eye, probably 50% of the hard labor in this country. i'd rather we look at our dependence on foreign labor than our dependence on foreign oil.
i mention the oil because that seems to be the basis of all of McCains' platform.

[534634634265]

Religion is a dangerous and subversive influence, it promotes the acceptance of blatant and nonsensical unreason exactly why the fuck do we need yet another reason for our key ruling idiots with all the money to give the scumbags who perpetuate these blatent and ancient lies funding for their self-serving PR "humanitarian" efforts in the wider community.

Don't get me wrong if I ever get seriously sick in the US I have no problem with being in a catholic hospital and sucking up tax money like a sponge when I claim back the medical bills I just don't see why a totally pointless and potentially unclean crucifix on which filth and pathogens can collect should be in anywhere near my bed nor do i especially wish to risk being treated by people who'll believe it's god's will and let me die if I suffer complications.

The concept a potential elected head cocksucker of the USA proposing that he'll get busy throwing money at these deluded scumfucks is one that chills me to the bone. In western society, that same society that prides itself on it's intelligence and reasoning (well I know a fair number of people east of the atlantic do at least) how can we feel safe letting the very same arseholes who told us we had plague because we hadn't invaded the middle east recently treat our ills?

I'm fine with people being humane to each other I don't promote killing young children against walls by heavy blows with a sledgehammer and I'm simply saying that religion isn't required to do that it's perfectly possible to fund a hospital without bibles and guilting people into donation.
:closedeyes::closedeyes::closedeyes:
you swear so much that i'm less likely to find anything you say valid, even if it IS a good point. in fact, after a while i just quit reading your post and looked elsewhere for intelligent debate. also, some punctuation would greatly improve the legibility of your post. just thoughts.

[eyedrop]

First of all I'm not saying that all religious institutions are evil, but that the major religion in a territory has always supplied ruling class ideology.




really, cuz ive got this study that say 482% of quoted scientific faxts are bullshit numbers made up on the spot It is well known that 90% of statistics are made up on the spot. Besides how can there be more than 100% of quoted scientific facts? Everyone knows to not trust "scientific" reports of subjects that are to much politically involved. It requires a bit knowledge and sceptisism to obtain true information, but it beats any other waay of achieving knowledge we have. That is not really science, but the way society uses science. The right answers are still there. In opposition to religion where you can't really say that the witch burners misinterpreted gods words. You can only claim that they did. Science holds objective truth, scripture does not.

not related to the church. only crazed, paranoid, and possibly tripping lunatics burned witches.
Why didn't Rome excommunicate all of the clergy, off them quite a few high ranking, that participated in it? It was not just some lunatics that did it, the witch scare worked much the same as the immigrant scare does today. The ruling class makes up enemies amongst the poor to take the blame for how lousy society is. To avert blame from themselfes. Want me to list some bishops who had an impressing record ranging from 200 to 900 killed witches (includes males and children too) and where still accepted by Rome?

The witches where the immigrants of that day and the religious institutions where very willing to supply the ideology to support it. If any church got some major power today like they had at that time, which luckily is quite impossible I don't doubt it for a second that they would conjure an anemy just like the ruling class has always done.

[al8]

:closedeyes::closedeyes::closedeyes:
you swear so much that i'm less likely to find anything you say valid, even if it IS a good point. in fact, after a while i just quit reading your post and looked elsewhere for intelligent debate. also, some punctuation would greatly improve the legibility of your post. just thoughts.


That's your problem. And its called being an overly sensitive whimp.

[Bud Struggle]

That's your problem. And its called being an overly sensitive whimp.

CL's a pretty bright guy. He's actually has something to say. I read his posts--not something I can say about EVERY Communist on this board. :)

[al8]

Ah maybe the reactionary wolf smells a friend, eh? :lol:

[534634634265]

Ah maybe the reactionary wolf smells a friend, eh? :lol:
knowledge from a source outside of your belief system too scary?
also, you misspelled "wimp". which makes you a tool.:D
while i may not agree with all of his politics, Tom makes more intelligent posts than i've read from you.:cool:
its easy to critique others without contributing to the debate. i'm over it, for now.

@eyedrops
the witch burning problem arose from scared and small minded locals who blamed "witches" for crop failure and miscarriages. the church had little to do with it, but allowed it to happen on the off chance it eliminated a few actual pagans.
yeah, i do want you to list those bishops, then show me how much land and wealth they gained from killing those "witches". when a heretic was killed the local church seized their property in order to "cleanse" it. they also made tidy sums.:)

[al8]

Thank you for pointing out a spelling error. That way I learn.


knowledge from a source outside of your belief system too scary?

I wouldn't call it knowledge, rather a sentiment. And I wouldn't call "it" scary either, rather suspect.

[534634634265]

I wouldn't call it knowledge, rather a sentiment. And I wouldn't call "it" scary either, rather suspect.

Stalin, Lenin, and Mao called a lot of things suspect. things like free-speech, western music, and political satire.;)
point being, be careful with the word "suspect". what exactly are you suspicious of? someone changing your mind?

[Killfacer]

Church had nothing to do with Witch Burning? Even if you where refering to Salem and other witch burnings in the US, to say the church isnt involved in witch burnings seems a bit off. The vatican made the inquisition: look at this list of Grand Inquisitors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Inquisitor. All of them a Clergymen. Very little to do with witch burning? Oh no just around 50 Grand inquisitors.

[534634634265]

Church had nothing to do with Witch Burning? Even if you where refering to Salem and other witch burnings in the US, to say the church isnt involved in witch burnings seems a bit off. The vatican made the inquisition: look at this list of Grand Inquisitors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Inquisitor. All of them a Clergymen. Very little to do with witch burning? Oh no just around 50 Grand inquisitors.
i was referring to the Salem trials, but only obliquely. however, the witch burnings in europe began before the inquisition did.
also, you miss my point on the motivations of these people. the church sanctioned these killings, then seized the assets of those killed as witches or heretics. the people who made these decisions didn't do it out of concern for the spiritual welfare of their parish, they did it out of concern for the thickness of their respective wallets. the inquisition, the crusades, all of these things people claim the catholic church executed in the name of religion, IT WAS FOR MONEY!!
of course the catholic church, one of the largest financial organizations in its day and likely still one of the largest, supported a policy of eliminating people who had little chance to resist or speak out. they stood to gain enormously from these peoples deaths. then, when people began to see this money pouring into the church, they made a scapegoat out of a smaller sect (knights templar). the catholic church had its fingers in every political, financial, and societal pie they could.
this whole debate began over whether or not religions could operate in a secular manner for good causes. i still say yes. this argument over the role of the catholic church, while interesting, is a side topic. religious groups have historically been interested in the good of the people, because they get their funding from those people.
truly spiritual people don't do good deeds for any reason other than that they believe it is right to help your fellow man. i see no reason to disagree with that.

EDIT: of course the church placed bishops and priors in charge of the inquisition, who else could make sure the money and land went to the people it was "supposed" to go to?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

also, you miss my point on the motivations of these people. the church sanctioned these killings, then seized the assets of those killed as witches or heretics. the people who made these decisions didn't do it out of concern for the spiritual welfare of their parish, they did it out of concern for the thickness of their respective wallets. the inquisition, the crusades, all of these things people claim the catholic church executed in the name of religion, IT WAS FOR MONEY!!

So religion provides cosmic justification for thieving murderers. All the more reason to abolish it!


of course the catholic church, one of the largest financial organizations in its day and likely still one of the largest, supported a policy of eliminating people who had little chance to resist or speak out. they stood to gain enormously from these peoples deaths. then, when people began to see this money pouring into the church, they made a scapegoat out of a smaller sect (knights templar). the catholic church had its fingers in every political, financial, and societal pie they could.

The history of the Catholic Church is soaked in blood and tears. How do you think they managed to get away with it for so long?


this whole debate began over whether or not religions could operate in a secular manner for good causes. i still say yes. this argument over the role of the catholic church, while interesting, is a side topic. religious groups have historically been interested in the good of the people, because they get their funding from those people.

Usually via completely fraudulent means.


truly spiritual people don't do good deeds for any reason other than that they believe it is right to help your fellow man. i see no reason to disagree with that.

Wrong. "truly spiritual people" do whatever God/The Universe/the voice in their head tells them to do. They are quite literally deluded.

[534634634265]

So religion provides cosmic justification for thieving murderers. All the more reason to abolish it!
its like you didn't even read what i wrote.:mad:
members of the church saw the potential for FINANCIAL gains. the church didn't make an official policy on witches or heretics until after the killings had been going on for a while.


The history of the Catholic Church is soaked in blood and tears. How do you think they managed to get away with it for so long?
you responded with an emotional statement. how can i respond to it without falling into the verbal pitfall you just made?:confused:


Usually via completely fraudulent means.
actually, the church initially got all of its money from donations given freely by parishioners. this was so they could build new churches and purchase supplies needed by the monks of the various monastaries.:)
they instituted the policy of granting freedom from sins for money (i assume what your talking about) later. this policy was an outward sign of the transition from a spiritual organization to a financial organization. this transition had been taking place for a long time, but it became more outwardly obvious as time went on.


Wrong. "truly spiritual people" do whatever God/The Universe/the voice in their head tells them to do. They are quite literally deluded.
file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Billing/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpgyour ignorance is showing.
do you think simply because someone is a "spiritual" person that they are incapable of good? this is like arguing in circles, just please read the rest of this thread before you post again.:bored:
you don't think martin luther king jr. was a progressive who sought positive change? you don't think mother theresa was genuinely interested in help ingthe poor? what does it matter what their beliefs were? look at the good they did, and that others try and do, and please be quiet while you think about it. its like you didn't read any of this thread except for my last post, and then you just replied with opinions instead of facts.:blink:

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

Religion is and always has been the province of the ignorant, however you may wish the dress up their delusions.

The final stumbling block is always that they are willingly refuting empirical truth to defend such delusion is to willingly allow others to be led astray by those who would use their gullibility for their own ends.

Allowin such shows a definate division in your commitment to the equality and freedom of all or class solidarity within the working class and your desire to be told to shut the fuck up by people who can grasp that there is no magic fairy man in the sky with winged dipshit sidekicks shaking his head at homosexuals and throwing AIDS at people.

Jazzratt's edit: Removed flames at request of user. (Second edit was to more clearly delineate edit from original text)

[534634634265]

]Religion is and always has been the province of the ignorant, however you may wish the dress up their delusions.
but it isn't YOUR place to "disillusion" those people. they believe what they want to believe. or is it now ok to force your beliefs on others?:blink:

The final stumbling block is always that they are willingly refuting empirical truth to defend such delusion is to willingly allow others to be led astray by those who would use their gullibility for their own ends.
your lack of punctuation makes this hard to read. im gonna guess your saying that because people have religion they are automatically dumber or more gullible? surely not my friend.

Allowin such shows a definate division in your commitment to the equality and freedom of all or class solidarity within the working class and your desire to be told to shut the fuck up by people who can grasp that there is no magic fairy man in the sky with winged dipshit sidekicks shaking his head at homosexuals and throwing AIDS at people.
see, this is where you get inflamed about what you believe, and refuse to let others have their own. i believe in the need for unity or "class solidarity".
You come across as basically just an angry teenager/Stalinist:lol:.
if i want to see unity in the proletariat, it won't come from telling the majority of them that they need to "shut the fuck up".
I am commited to free choice for all. namely, freedom to choose what i do, and choose what i believe in. your poorly punctuated, rambling flame just shows your inability to grant those same freedoms. If you want to keep people from exploiting the religious, enforce the separation of church and state that is supposed to already be in place.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

Firstly DYSLEXIA?! Well I never!

Now on with intelligent discussion.


Religion is and always has been the province of the ignorant, however you may wish the dress up their delusions.
but it isn't YOUR place to "disillusion" those people. they believe what they want to believe. or is it now ok to force your beliefs on others?

To start with I'm not merely "believing" anything I'm sure and have become convinced on simple and quantifiable grounds that there is no god.

Liberalism will not stop the atrocity that religion causes I don't advocate forcing anyone into believing anything as I view belief as the root of the problem as a people humans are old enough and ugly enough to deal with life without the emotional crutch of god.

I would further add that I don't run about burning churches and demanding the immediate dismantling of all faith systems I do however hope that one day the people will demand for the aforementioned faith systems to be dismantled and if they happened to burn the churches I wouldn't mourn the loss of anything more than any other piece of grand achitecture.

It's not about forcing people to do what they don't want to, it's about showing them that they don't needn't need to lie to themselves to be happy and moral people.


The final stumbling block is always that they are willingly refuting empirical truth to defend such delusion is to willingly allow others to be led astray by those who would use their gullibility for their own ends.
your lack of punctuation makes this hard to read. im gonna guess your saying that because people have religion they are automatically dumber or more gullible? surely not my friend.

Once again. Dyslexia? Well I never!

I'd say anyone who believes something that cannot possibly be proved has aready shown themself to be gullible or at least regrettably deluded.


Allowin such shows a definate division in your commitment to the equality and freedom of all or class solidarity within the working class and your desire to be told to shut the fuck up by people who can grasp that there is no magic fairy man in the sky with winged dipshit sidekicks shaking his head at homosexuals and throwing AIDS at people.
see, this is where you get inflamed about what you believe, and refuse to let others have their own. i believe in the need for unity or "class solidarity".
You come across as basically just an angry teenager/Stalinist.
if i want to see unity in the proletariat, it won't come from telling the majority of them that they need to "shut the fuck up".
I am commited to free choice for all. namely, freedom to choose what i do, and choose what i believe in. your poorly punctuated, rambling flame just shows your inability to grant those same freedoms. If you want to keep people from exploiting the religious, enforce the separation of church and state that is supposed to already be in place

Dyslexia? Well I never!

Flaming: Definition because I must assume you don't know it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet))

If you want to see unity in the proletariat you remove the walls the illogical faith such as religion, natonalism and sociological conditioning that divide us against ourselves.

You talk of enforcement of division between church and state in the same paragraph as freedom seemyingly without realising that one of those sainted freedoms you hold so dear is the right of religious sophists to rant anything they desire to those vulnerable few who believe.

I live in a country that doesn't have a constitutional division of church and state and guess what? When the faiths get uppity the government either attempts to reason with them or ignores them. Whichever is (at least supposedly) in the interest of the majority of the people based on the actual policy they requested. When was the last time you heard of a mainstream christian group being ignored in the USA on any point of policy? Obviously my bringing up this point is another example of the dividing influence of nationalism and of course there is the fact that on a greater scale I don't advocate the English governing system either.

It isn't politicians leading the religious flocks astray or religious meddling in politics that scare me it's the idiotic bickering that divides the people and distracts them from fighting for a better deal from the men with the money.

In short it's support of religious factionalism's dividing influence on the proletariat that concerns me, especially among those who profess the desire to have the proletariat unified.

I hate to bring it up at ths point in the discussion but hasn't anyone else realised that churches are already institutions? I mean it's not like it happened recently either.

Also maybe you should leave a line between a quote and your response to it I preserved your formatting in my quotes but at times your post was hard to read.

[Comrade Rage]

its not that similar to Bush's initiatives.

edit: read the whole article

"Fearful of offending liberal voters devoted to the separation of church and state, the Obama campaign stressed this morning that recipients of federal grants would be barred from proselytising to the people who receive services, and would be prohibited from discrimination on religious grounds.
They would be forbidden from discrimination in hiring, as well. The federal money could only be directed to "secular" programmes, the campaign said.
"I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea," Obama said, "so long as we follow a few basic principles."They still proselytyze, just not in an overt manner. I've been to a lot of food pantries that are held in churches, and they are barred from proselytizing or preaching to people who are in there waiting for food. However, they make sure that everyone has to walk past or wait near large posters of bible verses in order to get their food. They also make sure that the only reading material in the waiting area (if any) is relgious pamphlets and magazines.

the Obama campaign stressed this morning that recipients of federal grants would be barred from proselytising to the people who receive services
My ass!

[534634634265]

Firstly DYSLEXIA?! Well I never!


How is the inability to punctuate related to dyslexia?




To start with I'm not merely "believing" anything I'm sure and have become convinced on simple and quantifiable grounds that there is no god.


the same way some religious nut could claim they have simple and quantifiable grounds that there IS a god.



Liberalism will not stop the atrocity that religion causes I don't advocate forcing anyone into believing anything as I view belief as the root of the problem as a people humans are old enough and ugly enough to deal with life without the emotional crutch of god.


ahh but see, that IS a belief. i believe humans are beautiful creatures, and that having faith in a god is no different than having faith in a political ideal. its all about what you believe my friend.



It's not about forcing people to do what they don't want to, it's about showing them that they don't needn't need to lie to themselves to be happy and moral people.


but what if they are happy believing in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit?
you aren't going to show them anything that would remove that belief, you'd only offend them.




I'd say anyone who believes something that cannot possibly be proved has aready shown themself to be gullible or at least regrettably deluded.


really? you believe in the ability of a socialist/communist state to overcome all of mankinds ills, without any physical proof.




If you want to see unity in the proletariat you remove the walls the illogical faith such as religion, natonalism and sociological conditioning that divide us against ourselves.


so if i believe in the flying spaghetti monster i can't be part of the revolution? If i believe a divine entity inspired Marx to bring socialist theory to mankind? how am i dividing against myself? YOU create the divisions when you deny me the right to believe what i want.



You talk of enforcement of division between church and state in the same paragraph as freedom seemyingly without realising that one of those sainted freedoms you hold so dear is the right of religious sophists to rant anything they desire to those vulnerable few who believe.


separation of church and state doesn't impose on religious freedom, it merely separates the institutions of religion and politics to avoid bias. indeed, when the constitution and bill of rights were written it was more about freedom OF religious choice, since the lessons of british/anglican persecution were so fresh in the national consciousness.



I live in a country that doesn't have a constitutional division of church and state and guess what? When the faiths get uppity the government either attempts to reason with them or ignores them. Whichever is (at least supposedly) in the interest of the majority of the people based on the actual policy they requested. When was the last time you heard of a mainstream christian group being ignored in the USA on any point of policy? Obviously my bringing up this point is another example of the dividing influence of nationalism and of course there is the fact that on a greater scale I don't advocate the English governing system either.


all the time. haven't you heard of Roe vs. Wade? or maybe Brown vs. Board of Education? a couple of examples in which the religious viewpoint was ignored for the greater good. while religious groups have come to the forefront of RECENT politics due to their ability to organize large numbers of voters, even the great evil Bush has seen criticism from the religious right for failing to implement "their" policies.



It isn't politicians leading the religious flocks astray or religious meddling in politics that scare me it's the idiotic bickering that divides the people and distracts them from fighting for a better deal from the men with the money.


i see no bickering except between a small minority of leftists that frequent this website. Again, i see no reason to make what a person believes a qualifier for eagerness to see change. plenty of religious people are left-leaning too.



In short it's support of religious factionalism's dividing influence on the proletariat that concerns me, especially among those who profess the desire to have the proletariat unified.


only those who wish to make religion a point of division create this fractured atmosphere, and its only due to their intolerance of people with differing faiths.

sorry, i tried to format in a more reader friendly way this time.


EDIT:
They still proselytyze, just not in an overt manner. I've been to a lot of food pantries that are held in churches, and they are barred from proselytizing or preaching to people who are in there waiting for food. However, they make sure that everyone has to walk past or wait near large posters of bible verses in order to get their food. They also make sure that the only reading material in the waiting area (if any) is relgious pamphlets and magazines.

i dunno man, i was pretty happy to stay in that homeless shelter, even if it was a religious place. i think people in line for food are GENERALLY more interested in getting their food than reading religious tracts. also, your in a CHURCH. what do you expect to be on the walls of churches? what material would they be interested in reading, other than religious material? go to a homeless shelter or food pantry that isn't in a church if you just can't stand getting your free handouts from people whose beliefs differ from yours.
:)

[Comrade Rage]

i dunno man, i was pretty happy to stay in that homeless shelter, even if it was a religious place. i think people in line for food are GENERALLY more interested in getting their food than reading religious tracts. also, your in a CHURCH.
So what? They're recieving FEDERAL money. If you want to go about arguing that angle, your argument fails hard because the only reason that the church does this is because the state, and federal governments as well as Second Harvest FUND these food pantries. Food pantries aren't a church program, they are government/secular charities' programs. The churches only serve as a venue.

what do you expect to be on the walls of churches?
Actually, churches usually have a seperate area for the sole purpose of a food pantry. They do have to refridgerate the food, you know. It's these areas that I'm talking about, not the main area of a church.

what material would they be interested in reading, other than religious material?
A lot of these places have normal stuff out of the reach of the people in line.


go to a homeless shelter or food pantry that isn't in a church if you just can't stand getting your free handouts from people whose beliefs differ from yours.
:)Why should I have to choose between going hungry and having some asshole's religious windbag/nutbar superstition crap shat at me? In case you didn't notice, there aren't a lot of food pantries out there to begin with. And now, since the capitalist economy is tanking, food pantry donations can't keep up with record demand. (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=768627)