The Democrats have already tossed lots of religious groups out of the party. I just wondered out loud whether they could do this with Catholics and still have any hopes of being a majority party again.
It will become even more interesting if Lieberman were to get the nomination.
I thought that our diversity was our strength, and that we should be tolerant of all beliefs. How can you make an completely intolerant statement like that?
You mistake me. And anyway, tolerance is vastly overrated.
The converted have problems, let's start with Catholics and the evangelism or missionary work in their history. It takes some pretty serious trauma, historically, to convert people, go ask a native, ha! So when people today "convert" I have to wonder about their mental states. We are as secular as anyone could hope for, and with little political consequence (in our day to day lives) to our religion there's little real reason to convert to anything, except for true belief. True belief troubles me because it is almost always a performance. Religious extroverts convert.
So if mom and pop were whack jobs, that's no childs fault, we all live with what we got. But conversion (not belief) is deeply suspect. The real reasons for religion (or at least to keep participating) are tradition and community: converts, for whatever reasons, break tradition and community in favor of some existential insecurities they will always live with. In fact, many will become obnoxiously proselythizing once they convert simply because conversion has not abated this deep anxiety, and they need to convert more people in order to repeat the feeling of security. Virtually ALL Jehova's witness behave this way. There are very few honest converts in the world. It's possible, but extremely unlikely.
The only psychologically tolerable conversion I can think of is a pragmatic one. "when in Rome..." or to marry someone else, to join a new family, something that roots the conversion in something real rather than a figment of faith.
Can you tell that I love it when Jehova's and Mormons come to my door? I do, I figure if anyone is going to take the time to convert me, I should do my best to convert them.
I've only once had one of them return. I used to council my friends to engage them, but they stopped when the Jehova's kept coming back. I guess you have to really overpower them to get them to give up on you, but it really isn't that hard. The modern evangelist works from a compulsion to repeat, where a hundred years ago either an epic or economic task spurned them. When you understand that the person at your door is basically (deeply) injured, a little twist of the knife will send them running and they won't return.
By definition, you have to identify with an organization's rules if you want to be a member.
Yes, but the church is your church by conscription. You go to the church that your parents go to. Also, there is the famous Catholic phrase (paraphrasing) "give us your children and they will be ours forever".
I haven't been to church since I was 15, but, if pressed, I would have to say that I am Catholic. That's the power of that church. Of course as a god-cursed sodomite and supporter of a womans right to kill her unborn baby and a man's right to fornicate and spill his seed hither and yon, I'm sure there is someone out there willing to send a papal cease-and-desist order to me too.
You mistake me. And anyway, tolerance is vastly overrated.
True belief troubles me because it is almost always a performance. Religious extroverts convert.....
The real reasons for religion (or at least to keep participating) are tradition and community: converts, for whatever reasons, break tradition and community in favor of some existential insecurities they will always live with.....
......When you understand that the person at your door is basically (deeply) injured, a little twist of the knife will send them running and they won't return.
This is specious. Your beliefs are entirely religious---you are simply claiming to be nuetral.
The questions I asked specifically was how do you think this might pan out for the Democratic party eventually.
I honestly think it's too small of an ordeal to cause any problems. It's a political move, and I think most pro-choice people will see it as such. The only way for it to become an issue is for the Catholic guy to get on TV and start making a problem, but the more vocal he gets the less serious the pro-choice crowd will take him.
This is specious. Your beliefs are entirely religious---you are simply claiming to be nuetral.
But it was a nice try.
Aww, come on, it was beter than nice, it was true.
I'm not religious in the fashion of the devout, but I still believe in humanism, which is basically a religion, I have deeply "religious" concerns, fears, motivtions, but they do not bend my knee, if that's what you mean. So I appreciate religion for the depth of it's cultural contribution. The older the faith, the deeper its continuity through time, the better. I once thought of becoming a Jew, really, but that could not work. So I am agnostic, I do not think anyone has the answers to the mysteries, those answers really are an anti-religion if you make any sort of fervent attachment to them.
I do not think this is specious in the least. Without tradition, community, and cultural and/or quasi-nationalistic bonds, religion must rest on faith. A performance. Religion comes from doubt, not faith. That does not make it any less valid, there is a lot that needs doubt.
I like history, remain more interested in what Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sihks, Bhuddists and Authentic Pagans have to say than what some Baptist in an industrial unit is spewing to keep the poor blacks happy. These people are getting short changed for their spiritual dollar, just like Jehova's Witnesses, and Mormons, to name two. Do I think they're wrong? Yes, I think no one could possibly be right, including these religions that I would pay more heed to. That makes them less of a religion in my eyes, because their contributions are so much less. It's like comparing the muppets to Shakespeare, both can be good but they're on two different levels. So it is between "faiths."
While I have no desire to engage in "my version of God is better than yours" (in politics), intellectually I know that some religions are better than others in different cases.
Jews move to the head of the class philosophically, right beside the Greek pagans. Catholics, artistically (with an Anglican phase of similar weight.) The Orthodox strikes a middle ground between art and philosophy. Different pagans (not the neo-pagans, who are a joke) get top marks for sexual and enviromental developments, and for investing christianity with the ferocity of Rome. Muslims, I'm sad to say, I don't know enough, but the evidence suggests tht the west owes many political and civic lessons to them, and their pre-Muslim ancestry.
So, If you mean my beliefs are entirely religious after a humanistic sense? Yes, I would worship in many churches if I could, even if I don't "believe" any of the could possibly assign a formula to the mysteries we MUST live with in our time. I am not a devotee of one faith, even if I was born to a pretty good one (by my somewhat different standards of what makes a religion worthy of attention).
I honestly think it's too small of an ordeal to cause any problems. It's a political move, and I think most pro-choice people will see it as such. The only way for it to become an issue is for the Catholic guy to get on TV and start making a problem, but the more vocal he gets the less serious the pro-choice crowd will take him.
I know this might be a bit hard but... pretend there are some pro-life Catholics in the Democratic party. While Al Gore and others had to switch their positions on this policy to run for things like the presidency, pretend that these folks didn't because...well they just vote.
Blue-collar Democrats, Union families, Catholics, are actually pretty conservative by nature. They are more historically Democrat than I would say politically active as Democrats. They are the "Reagan Democrats" that Bush and others can win over with things like "Compassionate Conservatism" because they identify with religious and family oriented issues.
I'm not saying it is going to be a 20% swing of something of that nature. But hey look what most of the competitive races were decided by. I think it was something like a 60,000 vote swing in certain counties nationwide would have lead to a Democratic majority in the House of Reps.
Knowing how close things are do you think this will have an impact upon swing voters, not the ones the Dem's already have sown up.
Aww, come on, it was beter than nice, it was true.
So, If you mean my beliefs are entirely religious after a humanistic sense? Yes, I would worship in many churches if I could, even if I don't "believe" any of the could possibly assign a formula to the mysteries we MUST live with in our time. I am not a devotee of one faith, even if I was born to a pretty good one (by my somewhat different standards of what makes a religion worthy of attention).
You are trying to say that your version of the chain of being is somehow objective and that you can escape your own presuppostions.
You mistake me. And anyway, tolerance is vastly overrated.
Yeah, but it's also very rarely practiced.
Quote:
Can you tell that I love it when Jehova's and Mormons come to my door? I do, I figure if anyone is going to take the time to convert me, I should do my best to convert them.
I've done the same thing but not for your reasons. Going door to door like they do has to be intimidating. I respect their willingness to confront the insecurities they must feel about it. The least I can do is show them some courtesy. But it is hard to truly engage someone so agenda-driven.
Knowing how close things are do you think this will have an impact upon swing voters, not the ones the Dem's already have sown up.
Again, I don't think so. Your point is valid, but I also think that the 'swing' voters that are pro-choice & Catholic would stick by someone being singled out and called 'non-Catholic' because they are in the same boat. A move like this could alienate equal numbers on either side of the swing fence.
Obviously it could play out in either favor. That means on any given day, when we're working with such small numbers (like 60,000 and even less in some states), some bad press could swing things either way. But I do also think it's too small of an issue to play in the presidential races. Probably because it could alienate numbers on either side. A lot of politicians and voters are in the same boat.
You are trying to say that your version of the chain of being is somehow objective and that you can escape your own presuppostions.
Absolutely not, I don't see where I said that any of that is "objective" just because I reject the objectivity claims of various religions. I make no claims about the unknowable except this one, the rest is hope, uncertainty, fear, desire... subjective. What we do know a little bit about as opposed to what we know very little about, the nature of subjects vs the natue of God. Nowhere did I speak to the nature of God, just woship and conversion.
Quote:
Religion is an expression of who we are.
Yep, no disagreement here, but some are more eloquent than others, more thoughtful, better conceived and more rigorous.
Do I want other people to be agnostic??? ? ??? I'm not sure not really, I just like to see people confront their motivations if possible.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
The Democrats have already tossed lots of religious groups out of the party. I just wondered out loud whether they could do this with Catholics and still have any hopes of being a majority party again.
It will become even more interesting if Lieberman were to get the nomination.
Originally posted by ena
I thought that our diversity was our strength, and that we should be tolerant of all beliefs. How can you make an completely intolerant statement like that?
You mistake me. And anyway, tolerance is vastly overrated.
The converted have problems, let's start with Catholics and the evangelism or missionary work in their history. It takes some pretty serious trauma, historically, to convert people, go ask a native, ha! So when people today "convert" I have to wonder about their mental states. We are as secular as anyone could hope for, and with little political consequence (in our day to day lives) to our religion there's little real reason to convert to anything, except for true belief. True belief troubles me because it is almost always a performance. Religious extroverts convert.
So if mom and pop were whack jobs, that's no childs fault, we all live with what we got. But conversion (not belief) is deeply suspect. The real reasons for religion (or at least to keep participating) are tradition and community: converts, for whatever reasons, break tradition and community in favor of some existential insecurities they will always live with. In fact, many will become obnoxiously proselythizing once they convert simply because conversion has not abated this deep anxiety, and they need to convert more people in order to repeat the feeling of security. Virtually ALL Jehova's witness behave this way. There are very few honest converts in the world. It's possible, but extremely unlikely.
The only psychologically tolerable conversion I can think of is a pragmatic one. "when in Rome..." or to marry someone else, to join a new family, something that roots the conversion in something real rather than a figment of faith.
Can you tell that I love it when Jehova's and Mormons come to my door? I do, I figure if anyone is going to take the time to convert me, I should do my best to convert them.
I've only once had one of them return. I used to council my friends to engage them, but they stopped when the Jehova's kept coming back. I guess you have to really overpower them to get them to give up on you, but it really isn't that hard. The modern evangelist works from a compulsion to repeat, where a hundred years ago either an epic or economic task spurned them. When you understand that the person at your door is basically (deeply) injured, a little twist of the knife will send them running and they won't return.
Originally posted by ena
By definition, you have to identify with an organization's rules if you want to be a member.
Yes, but the church is your church by conscription. You go to the church that your parents go to. Also, there is the famous Catholic phrase (paraphrasing) "give us your children and they will be ours forever".
I haven't been to church since I was 15, but, if pressed, I would have to say that I am Catholic. That's the power of that church. Of course as a god-cursed sodomite and supporter of a womans right to kill her unborn baby and a man's right to fornicate and spill his seed hither and yon, I'm sure there is someone out there willing to send a papal cease-and-desist order to me too.
Originally posted by Matsu
You mistake me. And anyway, tolerance is vastly overrated.
True belief troubles me because it is almost always a performance. Religious extroverts convert.....
The real reasons for religion (or at least to keep participating) are tradition and community: converts, for whatever reasons, break tradition and community in favor of some existential insecurities they will always live with.....
......When you understand that the person at your door is basically (deeply) injured, a little twist of the knife will send them running and they won't return.
This is specious. Your beliefs are entirely religious---you are simply claiming to be nuetral.
But it was a nice try.
Originally posted by BRussell
It will become even more interesting if Lieberman were to get the nomination.
Leiberman/Sharpton ticket...
"The party that encompasses everyone and appeals to no one"
Originally posted by trumptman
The questions I asked specifically was how do you think this might pan out for the Democratic party eventually.
I honestly think it's too small of an ordeal to cause any problems. It's a political move, and I think most pro-choice people will see it as such. The only way for it to become an issue is for the Catholic guy to get on TV and start making a problem, but the more vocal he gets the less serious the pro-choice crowd will take him.
Originally posted by ena
This is specious. Your beliefs are entirely religious---you are simply claiming to be nuetral.
But it was a nice try.
Aww, come on, it was beter than nice, it was true.
I'm not religious in the fashion of the devout, but I still believe in humanism, which is basically a religion, I have deeply "religious" concerns, fears, motivtions, but they do not bend my knee, if that's what you mean. So I appreciate religion for the depth of it's cultural contribution. The older the faith, the deeper its continuity through time, the better. I once thought of becoming a Jew, really, but that could not work. So I am agnostic, I do not think anyone has the answers to the mysteries, those answers really are an anti-religion if you make any sort of fervent attachment to them.
I do not think this is specious in the least. Without tradition, community, and cultural and/or quasi-nationalistic bonds, religion must rest on faith. A performance. Religion comes from doubt, not faith. That does not make it any less valid, there is a lot that needs doubt.
I like history, remain more interested in what Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sihks, Bhuddists and Authentic Pagans have to say than what some Baptist in an industrial unit is spewing to keep the poor blacks happy. These people are getting short changed for their spiritual dollar, just like Jehova's Witnesses, and Mormons, to name two. Do I think they're wrong? Yes, I think no one could possibly be right, including these religions that I would pay more heed to. That makes them less of a religion in my eyes, because their contributions are so much less. It's like comparing the muppets to Shakespeare, both can be good but they're on two different levels. So it is between "faiths."
While I have no desire to engage in "my version of God is better than yours" (in politics), intellectually I know that some religions are better than others in different cases.
Jews move to the head of the class philosophically, right beside the Greek pagans. Catholics, artistically (with an Anglican phase of similar weight.) The Orthodox strikes a middle ground between art and philosophy. Different pagans (not the neo-pagans, who are a joke) get top marks for sexual and enviromental developments, and for investing christianity with the ferocity of Rome. Muslims, I'm sad to say, I don't know enough, but the evidence suggests tht the west owes many political and civic lessons to them, and their pre-Muslim ancestry.
So, If you mean my beliefs are entirely religious after a humanistic sense? Yes, I would worship in many churches if I could, even if I don't "believe" any of the could possibly assign a formula to the mysteries we MUST live with in our time. I am not a devotee of one faith, even if I was born to a pretty good one (by my somewhat different standards of what makes a religion worthy of attention).
Originally posted by bunge
I honestly think it's too small of an ordeal to cause any problems. It's a political move, and I think most pro-choice people will see it as such. The only way for it to become an issue is for the Catholic guy to get on TV and start making a problem, but the more vocal he gets the less serious the pro-choice crowd will take him.
I know this might be a bit hard but... pretend there are some pro-life Catholics in the Democratic party. While Al Gore and others had to switch their positions on this policy to run for things like the presidency, pretend that these folks didn't because...well they just vote.
Blue-collar Democrats, Union families, Catholics, are actually pretty conservative by nature. They are more historically Democrat than I would say politically active as Democrats. They are the "Reagan Democrats" that Bush and others can win over with things like "Compassionate Conservatism" because they identify with religious and family oriented issues.
I'm not saying it is going to be a 20% swing of something of that nature. But hey look what most of the competitive races were decided by. I think it was something like a 60,000 vote swing in certain counties nationwide would have lead to a Democratic majority in the House of Reps.
Knowing how close things are do you think this will have an impact upon swing voters, not the ones the Dem's already have sown up.
Nick
Originally posted by Matsu
Aww, come on, it was beter than nice, it was true.
So, If you mean my beliefs are entirely religious after a humanistic sense? Yes, I would worship in many churches if I could, even if I don't "believe" any of the could possibly assign a formula to the mysteries we MUST live with in our time. I am not a devotee of one faith, even if I was born to a pretty good one (by my somewhat different standards of what makes a religion worthy of attention).
You are trying to say that your version of the chain of being is somehow objective and that you can escape your own presuppostions.
It's just not possible.
Religion is an expression of who we are.
Originally posted by ena
You are trying to say that your version of the chain of being is somehow objective and that you can escape your own presuppostions.
Matsu's an agnostic who's trying to convert others to agnosticism.
Originally posted by Matsu
You mistake me. And anyway, tolerance is vastly overrated.
Yeah, but it's also very rarely practiced.
Can you tell that I love it when Jehova's and Mormons come to my door? I do, I figure if anyone is going to take the time to convert me, I should do my best to convert them.
I've done the same thing but not for your reasons. Going door to door like they do has to be intimidating. I respect their willingness to confront the insecurities they must feel about it. The least I can do is show them some courtesy. But it is hard to truly engage someone so agenda-driven.
Originally posted by trumptman
Knowing how close things are do you think this will have an impact upon swing voters, not the ones the Dem's already have sown up.
Again, I don't think so. Your point is valid, but I also think that the 'swing' voters that are pro-choice & Catholic would stick by someone being singled out and called 'non-Catholic' because they are in the same boat. A move like this could alienate equal numbers on either side of the swing fence.
Obviously it could play out in either favor. That means on any given day, when we're working with such small numbers (like 60,000 and even less in some states), some bad press could swing things either way. But I do also think it's too small of an issue to play in the presidential races. Probably because it could alienate numbers on either side. A lot of politicians and voters are in the same boat.
Originally posted by ena
You are trying to say that your version of the chain of being is somehow objective and that you can escape your own presuppostions.
Absolutely not, I don't see where I said that any of that is "objective" just because I reject the objectivity claims of various religions. I make no claims about the unknowable except this one, the rest is hope, uncertainty, fear, desire... subjective. What we do know a little bit about as opposed to what we know very little about, the nature of subjects vs the natue of God. Nowhere did I speak to the nature of God, just woship and conversion.
Religion is an expression of who we are.
Yep, no disagreement here, but some are more eloquent than others, more thoughtful, better conceived and more rigorous.
Do I want other people to be agnostic??? ? ??? I'm not sure