LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY docjeff)


Originally seen here but the site seems to have been suspended.

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

09 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

08 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

07 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

06 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

05 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

04 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

03 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

02 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

01 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.



The last one is the one which I find most interesting. When the Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door, or the Mormons or the Baptists … they all find it distinctly queer that I, a non-Christian [no I won't say Atheist], know more about their holy book(s) than they do themselves. Indeed, I can count a whole slew of times when I've pointed out something in their scriptures which a) confuses them and b) they didn't realise was in there. For the more adept proselytizers (i.e. the ones online), I've always found that linking them to The Skeptic's Annotated Bible will nearly always get them out of my hair, so to speak.

Relying on the words in a book (or books) as your whole philosophy on life and not knowing all those words seems a bit of a puzzlement to me. Just once, and this IS meant facetiously, I would like to see even one person stick to all the rules in Leviticus for a year. In my mind, I see them either dying or in such bad shape that they need hospitalization.

I remember Dolly Parton was giving an interview once. She was talking about a time in her life when she was especially low and was seriously considering suicide. She said that she wanted to read the bible, cover to cover, as one of her last acts on Earth. After doing so, she somehow found the will to go on. I doubt it was the bible in and of itself that was responsible. But the point is that she did what a lot of Christians haven't and that's read it. She said it took her two months and change. A little each day was her method. She also chose the hardest translation to read - the King James Version.

So why don't they read it? More specifically, why do they nearly always quote it out of context?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY transmission31g)

The resurgence of evangelism in the United States in the late 20th and early 21st centuries has been facilitated, in large part, by the revival of hitherto dead and discredited arguments. The common assertion, for example, that America was founded as a Christian nation should indicate that one ought to be able to find clear articulations of this principle proximate to the time of the country’s founding; however, one finds precisely the opposite in the private and public writings of the founders, and in various official and legal documents of the period. For example, Article 11 of The Treaty of Tripoli states: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” This was approved unanimously by the Senate in 1797, signed by John Adams, and met with no public controversy.

The evolution debate, similarly, was until recently a thing of the past. In fact, the universal mockery that followed the Scopes Trial was what essentially destroyed the evangelical movement of the early 20th century and drove it underground for the next fifty years. Now, however, it’s perfectly acceptable for the evangelical movement to use the same argument that brought about its dissolution three-quarters of a century ago as a potent tool for gaining new adherents.

Apart from the fact that the majority Americans tend to have astonishingly short memories and a dim historical consciousness, does anybody have any ideas or opinions as to how this particular form of regression became a reality?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

This Media Matters study talks about the skewed representation of religion in media.

Care to guess to what side it's skewed? Here's a look:

In order to begin to assess how the news media paint the picture of religion in America today, this study measured the extent to which religious leaders, both conservative and progressive, are quoted, mentioned, and interviewed in the news media.

Among the study's key findings:

* Combining newspapers and television, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed in news stories 2.8 times as often [emphasis mine] as were progressive religious leaders.
* On television news -- the three major television networks, the three major cable new channels, and PBS -- conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed almost 3.8 times as often [emphasis mine] as progressive leaders.
* In major newspapers, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed 2.7 times as often as progressive leaders.

Despite the fact most religious Americans are moderate or progressive, in the news media it is overwhelmingly conservative leaders who are presented as the voice of religion. This represents a particularly meaningful distortion since progressive religious leaders tend to focus on different issues and offer an entirely different perspective than their conservative counterparts.

Is it any wonder that our country is perceived by outsiders as a nation of regressive religious fanatics?

Here's the full report.
And here's a discussion from On The Media with writer Jeff Sharlet and study author Paul Waldman. It's worth a listen.

Media bias is a major problem, but it also presents a major solution, too: Progressive Christian voices need to be heard instead of, and much more often than conservative voices, and should start insisting and persisting in being heard. If progressive Christians are the actual majority, they need to speak up. The time for being polite and unobtrusive is past.

Folks ask what we can do about the onslaught of the Religious Right- speaking up and showing up is definitely something that can be done.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY galeharold)

To whoever made this community. I am an atheist, but I have many religious friends and I have a great deal of respect for faith. It's wonderful to hear the voices of those of faith who do not want to create a new Dark Age.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY shamangirl)

http://kingdoms-eye.livejournal.com/profile?mode=full

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY jamie_miller)

http://team-tos.livejournal.com/

Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism are specifically cited. This should be interesting.