Talk:Religion

From dKosopedia

Corncam if you are troubled by this definition, then come up with a better one. As written this definition does not state that God either exists or does not exist. It's about religion. BartFraden September 19, 2006

I have copied the Wikipedia definition of religion. The election is now 48 days away, and I hope that we can all get back to the task at hand. --Corncam 07:46, 20 September 2006 (PDT)

Election or not, my "task" (responsibility) is to speak the truth. Warren Cohen

Warren, what is your source for truth? You proposed a comprise that calls 90% of Americans lazy and irrational. That sounds like a Karl Rove comprise to me, and I'm just not feeling disempowered enough to accept it. --Corncam 11:39, 20 September 2006 (PDT)

I noticed that the last two commenters didn't bother to justify their edits, but I will, because of the critical issues at stake. This site can only be effective if it stays on message (progressive politics), and it respects its readers. My first instinct about this article was that it was off message, and should be deleted - the only reason that I'm not deleting it now is my respect for BartFraden. As for respecting our readers; by the nature of the site we cannot help offending wing-nuts, but we can avoid gratuitous insults to our general readership. If anyone has a good reason for insulting potential allies I'd love to hear it, but until then, I will insist on neutral language. --Corncam 07:47, 21 September 2006 (PDT)

Poor Corncam, you will be a very busy fellow if you are always chasing about trying to articulate whatever nonsense the majority believes! Majorities or at least pluralities of Americans can be found to believe any damn fool thing, at least for a while. Look at public opinion about abortion and evolution. Heck, not too long ago a majority of Americans thought we could still win in Iraq. (The censor's work is never done.) As for being "on message" I'm not at all sure there is a single "message" since dKosopedia is not a campaign web page. Nothing we do here is going to change the outcome of the general election or any race. I dare say that not a single vote will be changed by whatever text appears for "Religion." BartFraden. September 21, 2006.

A majority of Americans think that Iowa and Idaho are the same state. Better change those article as well Corncam. Wookieman

A letter from corncam

Hello WarrenCohen,

You seem to be making a sincere effort on the Religion article, but I don't think you have understood my concerns. Your article is based on a critical theory perspective that views religion as a outdated artifact of primitive societies, and I can never accept that POV. Conversely, if someone had written an article stating that aetheists are insufferable know-it-alls, who flaunt their non-conformity as a mark of their disdain for the larger society, I don't think that you would accept that either.

Have you considered that religious groups are the primary forces advocating for human values in an otherwise dog-eat-dog society? That religious groups led the fights against slavery and segregation. That religious groups have sheltered Central American war refugees, and consistently advocated for humane treatment of immigrants. On a more personal note, I would argue that offering hope to the hopeless, and salvation to the lost is not "wishful thinking" - it is the basis of a meaningful life.

Your views about religion appear to be a reaction to Southern Baptist culture. Have you tried visiting a local liberal congregation? You write about Atlanta a lot, and the First United Methodist church downtown was a bastion of flaming liberals when I lived there. Regardless of where you live, most Unitarian, Reform Jewish, United Church of Christ and Episcopal congregations are pretty liberal. If you can't stand the thought of entering a church, try reading Street Prophets to get a sense of what liberal religion is about.

On a practical note, we need to win over at least some moderate, religious voters to end the evils of the Bush administration. And we aren't going to get them with articles that trash their beliefs.

As I've said elsewhere, I don't think this topic belongs on dKosopedia at all, so I'm not going to reply with an article that asserts my personal point of view; instead, I'm repeating the scrupulously neutral Wikipedia language.

Sincerely --Corncam 08:48, 25 September 2006 (PDT) ______________________________________________________________________________

The privilege always given to Religion is one of the major sicknesses of American politics. Always a double standard for Religion, with the religious and their institutions and groups always protected from rational criticism. Even here at dKos we are haunted by supernatural nonsense.

Hello Brudny, I appreciate your comment. If you re-read the article, you can see that it is not pro-religion, it is neutral. dKosopedia is about politics, and it is just not the place for that discussion. --Corncam 17:02, 26 September 2006 (PDT)

Hello Corncam, I am amazed. You believe there is no connection between religion and politics. Do you also beleive there is no connection between economy and politics? You should familiarize yourself with American politics. Maybe you have noticed how Republicans use Christianity all the time to win elections? I read the article very carefully. You seek to protect Religion from criticism because you are a religious person. Come out of haunted closet please.

Hi Brudny, Of course I'm religious, my letter above made that clear. I am a liberal Episcopalian, to be exact, and I am appalled by the way that Dobson and other hucksters have claimed the role of religious leaders. If you are a young person, I can understand why you think all religious groups are fundamentalist bigots - that's certainly how it seems on TV. But there are a lot of people like me out there, and unlike the fundys, we will support your right to believe whatever you want. Its not that religion doesn't have any connection to politics, my point is that discussions about the philosophy of religion are off topic for this site.

You may not believe it, but I really appreciate the passion that you and the other commenters have brought to this topic. I've known for years that the fundamentalists and crackpots have been getting better press than we liberals, but you made me realise that we have not just been overshadowed - to a lot of Americans, we have become invisible. We have no one but ourselves to blame for that, and it will probably take a long time to turn things around. Sincerely, --Corncam 18:30, 27 September 2006 (PDT)

If discussing religion is off topic then why do you insist on imposing your religious views on everyone else Mr. Episcopalian? You might think you are 'liberal' but you can't tolerate reading Religion criticized. Your liberalism is pretty thin stuff. You can't put Religion before Free Speech and be a liberal.

Hello Arnold Ziffel, Freedom of speech does not include the right to defame others, which is what the original text of this article did. The Wikipedia paragraph certainly does not reflect my views - it doesn't endorse any views at all. --Corncam 19:09, 27 September 2006 (PDT)