<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: In God’s Name 2.0: The Explicit Version</title>
	<atom:link href="http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/07/29/in-god%e2%80%99s-name-20-the-explicit-version/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/07/29/in-god%e2%80%99s-name-20-the-explicit-version/</link>
	<description>Atheism with Positivity</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:58:56 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Loren Petrich</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/07/29/in-god%e2%80%99s-name-20-the-explicit-version/comment-page-2/#comment-217129</link>
		<dc:creator>Loren Petrich</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 22:17:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/07/29/in-god%e2%80%99s-name-20-the-explicit-version/#comment-217129</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m rather disappointed at those here who seem to be claiming that they are too good to be activists.

But activism works -- even theatrical activism. Consider the numerous activist movements over the decades -- abolitionism, feminism 1.0, labor unionism, civil rights, feminism 2.0, gay rights, both sides of the abortion issue, etc.

In the late 1960&#039;s, Religious-Right leader noticed how badly they lost the civil-rights culture war. They don&#039;t like to talk about it nowadays, but they had been big on racial segregation back then. They had not been very activist, but they recognized that they&#039;d have to fight activism with activism.

It has to be significant that feminism 2.0, gay rights, and pro-choice have been almost entirely secular movements, being unwilling to make religious arguments. And even the civil-rights movement was largely secular, it must be said. The only religious pro-choice argument I know about is &quot;Only God may judge.&quot; Not something like &quot;God has given us sovereignty over our bodies.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m rather disappointed at those here who seem to be claiming that they are too good to be activists.</p>
<p>But activism works &#8212; even theatrical activism. Consider the numerous activist movements over the decades &#8212; abolitionism, feminism 1.0, labor unionism, civil rights, feminism 2.0, gay rights, both sides of the abortion issue, etc.</p>
<p>In the late 1960&#8217;s, Religious-Right leader noticed how badly they lost the civil-rights culture war. They don&#8217;t like to talk about it nowadays, but they had been big on racial segregation back then. They had not been very activist, but they recognized that they&#8217;d have to fight activism with activism.</p>
<p>It has to be significant that feminism 2.0, gay rights, and pro-choice have been almost entirely secular movements, being unwilling to make religious arguments. And even the civil-rights movement was largely secular, it must be said. The only religious pro-choice argument I know about is &#8220;Only God may judge.&#8221; Not something like &#8220;God has given us sovereignty over our bodies.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pseudonym</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/07/29/in-god%e2%80%99s-name-20-the-explicit-version/comment-page-2/#comment-216503</link>
		<dc:creator>Pseudonym</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 02:30:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/07/29/in-god%e2%80%99s-name-20-the-explicit-version/#comment-216503</guid>
		<description>Esther,

I actually quite agree with what Richard said here:

&lt;blockquote&gt;As for Jesus, I remember Mark, Matthew, Luke and John telling us about how when He found that the Temple had become a “den of thieves” filled with moneychangers, livestock and all sorts of unsavory shenanigans he made a whip out of cords, knocked over their tables and kicked their asses out. He was not above taking strong measures for what was just. Jesus challenged the corrupt status quo that misused the power of the clergy to oppress and exploit people. That’s why the status quo got rid of him. Christians who fail to follow his example of standing up to the corruption of their religion have no right to claim that they follow Him.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Jesus&#039; strongest language, and most forceful actions, were always targeted squarely at the religious &quot;hypocrites&quot; (that&#039;s the word he used, which means something &lt;i&gt;slightly&lt;/i&gt; different that it does today) of his day.  It&#039;s not exact, but the closest modern-day equivalent is the Christian conservative.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Esther,</p>
<p>I actually quite agree with what Richard said here:</p>
<blockquote><p>As for Jesus, I remember Mark, Matthew, Luke and John telling us about how when He found that the Temple had become a “den of thieves” filled with moneychangers, livestock and all sorts of unsavory shenanigans he made a whip out of cords, knocked over their tables and kicked their asses out. He was not above taking strong measures for what was just. Jesus challenged the corrupt status quo that misused the power of the clergy to oppress and exploit people. That’s why the status quo got rid of him. Christians who fail to follow his example of standing up to the corruption of their religion have no right to claim that they follow Him.</p></blockquote>
<p>Jesus&#8217; strongest language, and most forceful actions, were always targeted squarely at the religious &#8220;hypocrites&#8221; (that&#8217;s the word he used, which means something <i>slightly</i> different that it does today) of his day.  It&#8217;s not exact, but the closest modern-day equivalent is the Christian conservative.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darryl</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/07/29/in-god%e2%80%99s-name-20-the-explicit-version/comment-page-2/#comment-216478</link>
		<dc:creator>Darryl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 01:54:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/07/29/in-god%e2%80%99s-name-20-the-explicit-version/#comment-216478</guid>
		<description>God, Esther, did you ever step in it!  Try reading a Bible some time.  The parallels between the fundies and the hypocrites that Jesus railed against (he said some pretty hurtful things, I must say) are stunning, giving honest Christians a fine model for how to speak to them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>God, Esther, did you ever step in it!  Try reading a Bible some time.  The parallels between the fundies and the hypocrites that Jesus railed against (he said some pretty hurtful things, I must say) are stunning, giving honest Christians a fine model for how to speak to them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Wade</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/07/29/in-god%e2%80%99s-name-20-the-explicit-version/comment-page-2/#comment-216409</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Wade</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:52:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/07/29/in-god%e2%80%99s-name-20-the-explicit-version/#comment-216409</guid>
		<description>Esther, thank you for considering my appeal to Christians to actually live according to their professed principles.  To answer your question for which you have offered your own answer:

&lt;blockquote&gt;Would this speaking against be considered hating their neighbors or are the religious right not also human beings? You know, your solution sounds like backlash — bigotry against the bigoted — to me.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

No, I would not consider speaking up against injustice an act of hate.  I would consider doing nothing to stand against injustice a tacit  &lt;em&gt;endorsement&lt;/em&gt; of hate.  You&#039;re either part of the solution or you&#039;re part of the problem.  Christians who passively watch their religion be used to justify bigotry are abdicating their responsibility to their fellow man and are twisting their doctrine of &quot;love&quot; to rationalize a cowardly betrayal of their savior&#039;s principles.  

Yes, the religious right are human beings too and are entitled to respectful treatment, but no one gets carte blanche to do whatever they wish to others.  Human beings tend to become ruthless and extremist when no one has the courage to bring them down a notch once in a while.  Unchallenged bullies grow into tyrants.  Those who stood idly by have only themselves to blame when the tyranny finally comes their way.

As for Jesus, I remember Mark, Matthew, Luke and John telling us about how when He found that the Temple had become a &quot;den of thieves&quot; filled with moneychangers, livestock and all sorts of unsavory shenanigans he made a whip out of cords, knocked over their tables and kicked their asses out.  He was not above taking strong measures for what was just.  Jesus challenged the corrupt status quo that misused the power of the clergy to oppress and exploit people.  That&#039;s why the status quo got rid of him.  Christians who fail to follow his example of standing up to the corruption of their religion have no right to claim that they follow Him.

Esther, if you&#039;re afraid to take a real stand against those who use religion to promote abuse and justify hate, just honestly say so.  I can respect someone who is straight forward about their fear.  Some of these villains are genuinely scary.  But don&#039;t hide behind a lovey-dovey, nicey-nicey characterization of Jesus, the guy who wouldn&#039;t dream of confronting anyone.  That&#039;s simply false.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Esther, thank you for considering my appeal to Christians to actually live according to their professed principles.  To answer your question for which you have offered your own answer:</p>
<blockquote><p>Would this speaking against be considered hating their neighbors or are the religious right not also human beings? You know, your solution sounds like backlash — bigotry against the bigoted — to me.</p></blockquote>
<p>No, I would not consider speaking up against injustice an act of hate.  I would consider doing nothing to stand against injustice a tacit  <em>endorsement</em> of hate.  You&#8217;re either part of the solution or you&#8217;re part of the problem.  Christians who passively watch their religion be used to justify bigotry are abdicating their responsibility to their fellow man and are twisting their doctrine of &#8220;love&#8221; to rationalize a cowardly betrayal of their savior&#8217;s principles.  </p>
<p>Yes, the religious right are human beings too and are entitled to respectful treatment, but no one gets carte blanche to do whatever they wish to others.  Human beings tend to become ruthless and extremist when no one has the courage to bring them down a notch once in a while.  Unchallenged bullies grow into tyrants.  Those who stood idly by have only themselves to blame when the tyranny finally comes their way.</p>
<p>As for Jesus, I remember Mark, Matthew, Luke and John telling us about how when He found that the Temple had become a &#8220;den of thieves&#8221; filled with moneychangers, livestock and all sorts of unsavory shenanigans he made a whip out of cords, knocked over their tables and kicked their asses out.  He was not above taking strong measures for what was just.  Jesus challenged the corrupt status quo that misused the power of the clergy to oppress and exploit people.  That&#8217;s why the status quo got rid of him.  Christians who fail to follow his example of standing up to the corruption of their religion have no right to claim that they follow Him.</p>
<p>Esther, if you&#8217;re afraid to take a real stand against those who use religion to promote abuse and justify hate, just honestly say so.  I can respect someone who is straight forward about their fear.  Some of these villains are genuinely scary.  But don&#8217;t hide behind a lovey-dovey, nicey-nicey characterization of Jesus, the guy who wouldn&#8217;t dream of confronting anyone.  That&#8217;s simply false.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Esther</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/07/29/in-god%e2%80%99s-name-20-the-explicit-version/comment-page-2/#comment-216364</link>
		<dc:creator>Esther</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:59:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/07/29/in-god%e2%80%99s-name-20-the-explicit-version/#comment-216364</guid>
		<description>Let&#039;s see if I got this right.  You are saying that many Christians treat others with hatred and bigotry when those others refuse to agree with Christian ideas.  Check.  You do realize that many Christians (i.e. &quot;liberal Christians&quot;) disagree with the harm that the religious right justifies in the name of their God.  Check. Your solution is for liberal Christians to &quot;speak against&quot; the religious right.  Check.  Question: Would this speaking against be considered hating their neighbors or are the religious right not also human beings?  You know, your solution sounds like backlash -- bigotry against the bigoted -- to me.  

I don&#039;t remember Jesus doing any picketing or writing letters in the gospel.  I do remember him showing love to a lot of people and helping them out.  I somehow suspect he would have helped them whether they were bigots or those harmed by bigots.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s see if I got this right.  You are saying that many Christians treat others with hatred and bigotry when those others refuse to agree with Christian ideas.  Check.  You do realize that many Christians (i.e. &#8220;liberal Christians&#8221;) disagree with the harm that the religious right justifies in the name of their God.  Check. Your solution is for liberal Christians to &#8220;speak against&#8221; the religious right.  Check.  Question: Would this speaking against be considered hating their neighbors or are the religious right not also human beings?  You know, your solution sounds like backlash &#8212; bigotry against the bigoted &#8212; to me.  </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t remember Jesus doing any picketing or writing letters in the gospel.  I do remember him showing love to a lot of people and helping them out.  I somehow suspect he would have helped them whether they were bigots or those harmed by bigots.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kelly</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/07/29/in-god%e2%80%99s-name-20-the-explicit-version/comment-page-2/#comment-212761</link>
		<dc:creator>Kelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:39:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/07/29/in-god%e2%80%99s-name-20-the-explicit-version/#comment-212761</guid>
		<description>Just wanted to jump in here and say that I saw this while on Beliefnet the other day:
&lt;blockquote&gt;Religious Liberals Have a New Home 
Introducing our Progressive Revival blog, the new online home for the rising religious left. Thirty of the movement&#039;s most influential figures weigh in as Election &#039;08 nears and Obama fever builds. 
Read the Blog

Brian McLaren: Why Christians Scare People
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend on Protesting Clergy
Welton Gaddy: Risks, Rewards of Muslim Outreach&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Here is the link:
&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.beliefnet.com/progressiverevival/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;

Granted, it seems to basically be geared toward politically liberal religious folks, but I&#039;m assuming most of those are religiously liberal as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just wanted to jump in here and say that I saw this while on Beliefnet the other day:</p>
<blockquote><p>Religious Liberals Have a New Home<br />
Introducing our Progressive Revival blog, the new online home for the rising religious left. Thirty of the movement&#8217;s most influential figures weigh in as Election &#8216;08 nears and Obama fever builds.<br />
Read the Blog</p>
<p>Brian McLaren: Why Christians Scare People<br />
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend on Protesting Clergy<br />
Welton Gaddy: Risks, Rewards of Muslim Outreach</p></blockquote>
<p>Here is the link:<br />
<a href="http://blog.beliefnet.com/progressiverevival/" rel="nofollow"></p>
<p>Granted, it seems to basically be geared toward politically liberal religious folks, but I&#8217;m assuming most of those are religiously liberal as well.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Wade</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/07/29/in-god%e2%80%99s-name-20-the-explicit-version/comment-page-2/#comment-212732</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Wade</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:38:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/07/29/in-god%e2%80%99s-name-20-the-explicit-version/#comment-212732</guid>
		<description>My friends, I am so fond of all of you.  In your comments you all have brought to bear the full weight of your intellect, your passion, your caring, and from every single one of you so far, your respect and dignity.  With such companions I can never lose my way or spend any time in despair.

Please don’t be offended, confused or discouraged by my “nothing has changed” comment.  I was being ironic with that phrase in the short term, (of course nothing will have actually changed in only 24 hours from a post on an atheist blog) and thinking of the phrase in the long term I was respectfully admonishing you to remember that these habits we all practice are what stop or slow down the changes I’m hoping for.  They are:

•	Getting distracted onto side issues.  When a house is on fire it’s not the time to argue about good fire prevention methods or whose interpretation of the fire code is the most sensible or who has been more remiss in fire safety.  &lt;em&gt;Focus!
&lt;/em&gt; 
•	Coming up with “reasons” why it won’t work.  Almost invariably these are untested predictions or at best one-time anecdotes.  They’re actually arguments to not even make an attempt rather than reasons why the attempt will fail.  Question your self-defeating assumptions so you won’t lose by default. We don’t learn the best way by doing nothing; we learn the best way by trying the less-than-perfect way we have at the moment.

•	Blaming something or someone else over whom you have no control, such as powerful opponents, apathetic bystanders, disunited allies or  biased and self-serving observers. Acknowledge your responsibility.  Responsibility does not mean blame or fault.  It means &lt;em&gt;response-ability&lt;/em&gt;. Once we are aware of a situation we immediately become able to respond, or responsible.  We cannot avoid responding.  Even if we choose to do nothing &lt;em&gt;that’s our response&lt;/em&gt; and we will get whatever are the consequences of that choice just as surely as if we choose to do something.  We all have the ability to respond to situations often in small, sometimes in large ways.  When we combine and coordinate our small responses they add up to a large response.   


Linda, thank you for saying:

&lt;blockquote&gt;Richard, I agree completely that we need to work together. I just wish we could do it as one people who are on the same team rather than reluctant participants who are just temporarily working together out of necessity.&lt;/blockquote&gt; 

Strong alliances often start out as truces of convenience.  In our combined struggle to stop the intolerance of the bigots we will hopefully rid ourselves of our own. 

Teri, I am very happy to hear that you have already started a Christian blog against bigotry.  It is in a language I cannot read.  Please tell us more about it.

Desert Son, yes we should acknowledge history’s progress against bigotry and continue to build on it.  One important way is what you just did with Linda, to form an alliance of encouragement across your metaphysical differences.  Thank you.

Pseudonym, a letter of unified assertions against bigotry and for respect is a terrific idea.  It reminds me of the recent statement &lt;a href=&quot;http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/06/25/christians-turn-on-james-dobson/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;“James Dobson doesn’t Speak for Me”&lt;/a&gt;  signed by many Christian clergy and over 12,000 people. 

Jacob Dink,  you correctly observed:

&lt;blockquote&gt;Actually, if you want any sort of call to arms, perhaps the cacophonous blog-o-sphere is not the best place to air such a demand. And if you want to air this to demand to liberal Christians, while this isn’t the worst forum to do it, it’s certainly not the best.&lt;/blockquote&gt;  

You’re right, I’m no longer fishing with the wrong bait but I’m still fishing in the wrong lake.  I’m hoping a Christian or two will pick this up and post it on their own blog.  It’s a seed.  It can die from neglect or it can, with nurturing grow into a forest.  There are other such seeds blowing in the wind lately and I wish them all success.

Darryl, I agree that most people including myself don’t like confrontation and because of that I have hesitated for a long time to call on the liberal and moderate Christians to step boldly into the fray.   But I think most of the world is somehow aware that we as a species are at a crossroads. Things will either get a little better or a lot worse very soon.  It is not up to forces beyond our control, it is us, right here right now.  The time for timid pleading and biding time is gone.  If the meek inherit the Earth, it will be bacteria.  We will have brought the third great extinction upon ourselves because our efforts to stop the forces of intolerance were inadequate.

Stephan, I agree with you that progress has been made and I am grateful and heartened by the efforts of liberal Christians.  I’m just getting impatient with the slow pace because I have a strong sense that a pivotal moment is upon us.  Yes, the bigots are backing up but they are not yet routed.  They will try to regroup.  Quiet work is the backbone of the liberal Christians’ way; I’m simply saying that a loud and righteous roar of defiance and warning is also an important part of any epic struggle. They do not have to stoop to “being bigger jerks” when they publicly denounce injustice done in the name of their God.  

To any Christians out there, If you can without conflict or embarrassment use the services of an atheist with a knack for words and a passion for peace to help you in your cause for social justice, please let me know.

To all, I am convinced that the end of religiously justified bigotry and oppression is an idea whose time has finally come.  It is not an open ended opportunity, but a window that will remain open for a limited time.  Thank you  for your encouraging thoughts, ideas and suggestions, and please continue to look for unity rather than division, for bridges rather than walls, and for possibilities rather than impossibilities. And stay focused.  The fire threatens all of us.  We will see great change in our lifetimes.  What that change will be is up to us.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My friends, I am so fond of all of you.  In your comments you all have brought to bear the full weight of your intellect, your passion, your caring, and from every single one of you so far, your respect and dignity.  With such companions I can never lose my way or spend any time in despair.</p>
<p>Please don’t be offended, confused or discouraged by my “nothing has changed” comment.  I was being ironic with that phrase in the short term, (of course nothing will have actually changed in only 24 hours from a post on an atheist blog) and thinking of the phrase in the long term I was respectfully admonishing you to remember that these habits we all practice are what stop or slow down the changes I’m hoping for.  They are:</p>
<p>•	Getting distracted onto side issues.  When a house is on fire it’s not the time to argue about good fire prevention methods or whose interpretation of the fire code is the most sensible or who has been more remiss in fire safety.  <em>Focus!<br />
</em><br />
•	Coming up with “reasons” why it won’t work.  Almost invariably these are untested predictions or at best one-time anecdotes.  They’re actually arguments to not even make an attempt rather than reasons why the attempt will fail.  Question your self-defeating assumptions so you won’t lose by default. We don’t learn the best way by doing nothing; we learn the best way by trying the less-than-perfect way we have at the moment.</p>
<p>•	Blaming something or someone else over whom you have no control, such as powerful opponents, apathetic bystanders, disunited allies or  biased and self-serving observers. Acknowledge your responsibility.  Responsibility does not mean blame or fault.  It means <em>response-ability</em>. Once we are aware of a situation we immediately become able to respond, or responsible.  We cannot avoid responding.  Even if we choose to do nothing <em>that’s our response</em> and we will get whatever are the consequences of that choice just as surely as if we choose to do something.  We all have the ability to respond to situations often in small, sometimes in large ways.  When we combine and coordinate our small responses they add up to a large response.   </p>
<p>Linda, thank you for saying:</p>
<blockquote><p>Richard, I agree completely that we need to work together. I just wish we could do it as one people who are on the same team rather than reluctant participants who are just temporarily working together out of necessity.</p></blockquote>
<p>Strong alliances often start out as truces of convenience.  In our combined struggle to stop the intolerance of the bigots we will hopefully rid ourselves of our own. </p>
<p>Teri, I am very happy to hear that you have already started a Christian blog against bigotry.  It is in a language I cannot read.  Please tell us more about it.</p>
<p>Desert Son, yes we should acknowledge history’s progress against bigotry and continue to build on it.  One important way is what you just did with Linda, to form an alliance of encouragement across your metaphysical differences.  Thank you.</p>
<p>Pseudonym, a letter of unified assertions against bigotry and for respect is a terrific idea.  It reminds me of the recent statement <a href="http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/06/25/christians-turn-on-james-dobson/" rel="nofollow">“James Dobson doesn’t Speak for Me”</a>  signed by many Christian clergy and over 12,000 people. </p>
<p>Jacob Dink,  you correctly observed:</p>
<blockquote><p>Actually, if you want any sort of call to arms, perhaps the cacophonous blog-o-sphere is not the best place to air such a demand. And if you want to air this to demand to liberal Christians, while this isn’t the worst forum to do it, it’s certainly not the best.</p></blockquote>
<p>You’re right, I’m no longer fishing with the wrong bait but I’m still fishing in the wrong lake.  I’m hoping a Christian or two will pick this up and post it on their own blog.  It’s a seed.  It can die from neglect or it can, with nurturing grow into a forest.  There are other such seeds blowing in the wind lately and I wish them all success.</p>
<p>Darryl, I agree that most people including myself don’t like confrontation and because of that I have hesitated for a long time to call on the liberal and moderate Christians to step boldly into the fray.   But I think most of the world is somehow aware that we as a species are at a crossroads. Things will either get a little better or a lot worse very soon.  It is not up to forces beyond our control, it is us, right here right now.  The time for timid pleading and biding time is gone.  If the meek inherit the Earth, it will be bacteria.  We will have brought the third great extinction upon ourselves because our efforts to stop the forces of intolerance were inadequate.</p>
<p>Stephan, I agree with you that progress has been made and I am grateful and heartened by the efforts of liberal Christians.  I’m just getting impatient with the slow pace because I have a strong sense that a pivotal moment is upon us.  Yes, the bigots are backing up but they are not yet routed.  They will try to regroup.  Quiet work is the backbone of the liberal Christians’ way; I’m simply saying that a loud and righteous roar of defiance and warning is also an important part of any epic struggle. They do not have to stoop to “being bigger jerks” when they publicly denounce injustice done in the name of their God.  </p>
<p>To any Christians out there, If you can without conflict or embarrassment use the services of an atheist with a knack for words and a passion for peace to help you in your cause for social justice, please let me know.</p>
<p>To all, I am convinced that the end of religiously justified bigotry and oppression is an idea whose time has finally come.  It is not an open ended opportunity, but a window that will remain open for a limited time.  Thank you  for your encouraging thoughts, ideas and suggestions, and please continue to look for unity rather than division, for bridges rather than walls, and for possibilities rather than impossibilities. And stay focused.  The fire threatens all of us.  We will see great change in our lifetimes.  What that change will be is up to us.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephan</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/07/29/in-god%e2%80%99s-name-20-the-explicit-version/comment-page-2/#comment-212664</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:46:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/07/29/in-god%e2%80%99s-name-20-the-explicit-version/#comment-212664</guid>
		<description>Richard, I agree with a great deal of what you said, but I think you are looking at things rather pessimistically and not acknowledging things that really &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;have&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; changed.  There have been countless articles written recently on how the right wing Christian leaders (Dobson, et al) have lost much of their voice and power, particularly among young Christians.  I believe this is a direct result of people like Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren who have pointed fingers not at &quot;them&quot;, but at &quot;us&quot; as a church and group of believers.

Yes, there are still religious bigots, and there always will be.  Yes, they will always get plenty of press because that kind of thing sells.  But things are definitely changing.

It is the quiet work of a growing number of loving and tolerant Christians that will change things, not loud rantings and finger pointing.  We won&#039;t defeat the jerks by being bigger jerks (which appears to be the tactic of Dawkins, Harris, et al).  We will do it by attracting people by our actions to a better way of living.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Richard, I agree with a great deal of what you said, but I think you are looking at things rather pessimistically and not acknowledging things that really <strong><em>have</em></strong> changed.  There have been countless articles written recently on how the right wing Christian leaders (Dobson, et al) have lost much of their voice and power, particularly among young Christians.  I believe this is a direct result of people like Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren who have pointed fingers not at &#8220;them&#8221;, but at &#8220;us&#8221; as a church and group of believers.</p>
<p>Yes, there are still religious bigots, and there always will be.  Yes, they will always get plenty of press because that kind of thing sells.  But things are definitely changing.</p>
<p>It is the quiet work of a growing number of loving and tolerant Christians that will change things, not loud rantings and finger pointing.  We won&#8217;t defeat the jerks by being bigger jerks (which appears to be the tactic of Dawkins, Harris, et al).  We will do it by attracting people by our actions to a better way of living.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cipher</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/07/29/in-god%e2%80%99s-name-20-the-explicit-version/comment-page-2/#comment-212572</link>
		<dc:creator>cipher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:52:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/07/29/in-god%e2%80%99s-name-20-the-explicit-version/#comment-212572</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt; I take it you&#039;re Jewish yourself, presumably secular?&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Yes, I&#039;m an atheist.

&lt;blockquote&gt;some guy who climbed off the back of a camel... Apparently in the Middle East they have no turnip trucks.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Very good! Yeah, I&#039;m aware of the connection between Wahhabism and oil. And I&#039;m aware of Islam&#039;s history of scholarship. It probably reached its zenith in Spain under the Caliphate (it was a &quot;Golden Age&quot; for Jewish culture as well), but, you know - pressure from the Christians, competing Muslim groups, etc. Everything comes to an end.

Urban/rural competition - it&#039;s as old as civilization. The urbanites, generally better educated, more sophisticated, always look down on the country folk. Farmers/herders/small town people view urbanites with suspicion. 

I used to manage a Buddhist center - the Tibetans told me they have it in Tibet as well. The lama and his nephew, also a monk, came from a family of prosperous nomads. The young monk told me the view is that city people speak well, use flowery language, have elegant manners - but they can be deceitful. Farmers and nomads, on the other hand, are coarse - but you can trust them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p> I take it you&#8217;re Jewish yourself, presumably secular?</p></blockquote>
<p>Yes, I&#8217;m an atheist.</p>
<blockquote><p>some guy who climbed off the back of a camel&#8230; Apparently in the Middle East they have no turnip trucks.</p></blockquote>
<p>Very good! Yeah, I&#8217;m aware of the connection between Wahhabism and oil. And I&#8217;m aware of Islam&#8217;s history of scholarship. It probably reached its zenith in Spain under the Caliphate (it was a &#8220;Golden Age&#8221; for Jewish culture as well), but, you know &#8211; pressure from the Christians, competing Muslim groups, etc. Everything comes to an end.</p>
<p>Urban/rural competition &#8211; it&#8217;s as old as civilization. The urbanites, generally better educated, more sophisticated, always look down on the country folk. Farmers/herders/small town people view urbanites with suspicion. </p>
<p>I used to manage a Buddhist center &#8211; the Tibetans told me they have it in Tibet as well. The lama and his nephew, also a monk, came from a family of prosperous nomads. The young monk told me the view is that city people speak well, use flowery language, have elegant manners &#8211; but they can be deceitful. Farmers and nomads, on the other hand, are coarse &#8211; but you can trust them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pseudonym</title>
		<link>http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/07/29/in-god%e2%80%99s-name-20-the-explicit-version/comment-page-2/#comment-212551</link>
		<dc:creator>Pseudonym</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:15:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/07/29/in-god%e2%80%99s-name-20-the-explicit-version/#comment-212551</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;I realize everything evolves. I realize scripture is inconsistent. However, I don’t think the early Christians understood the texts figuratively,and I think that what the fundies of today believe is pretty much what most Christians have believed for most of the past 2,000 years. Mike Clawson keeps telling me that I’m wrong. I don’t think I am.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Well, I agree with Mike.  Apart from the first two and last two sentences, you&#039;re wrong.  Completely wrong.

That&#039;s very interesting what you wrote about Judaism.  I take it you&#039;re Jewish yourself, presumably secular?

Yes, there are parallels in the Islamic world, but as I understand it, part of the problem is economic.  By an accident of history, the richest oilfields in the world happened to be under an artificial country run by those whom my officemate (who is an Iraqi refugee) as &quot;Wahhabi bastards&quot;.  So part of the problem is that the more moderate and liberal Muslims aren&#039;t as rich or powerful as the fundamentalists.

(Islam has a great tradition of scholarship, jurisprudence and scientific enquiry.  By comparison, Wahhabism was founded by, in the words of said officemate &quot;some guy who climbed off the back of a camel&quot;.  I nearly did a spit take when he used that phrase.  Apparently in the Middle East they have no turnip trucks.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>I realize everything evolves. I realize scripture is inconsistent. However, I don’t think the early Christians understood the texts figuratively,and I think that what the fundies of today believe is pretty much what most Christians have believed for most of the past 2,000 years. Mike Clawson keeps telling me that I’m wrong. I don’t think I am.</p></blockquote>
<p>Well, I agree with Mike.  Apart from the first two and last two sentences, you&#8217;re wrong.  Completely wrong.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s very interesting what you wrote about Judaism.  I take it you&#8217;re Jewish yourself, presumably secular?</p>
<p>Yes, there are parallels in the Islamic world, but as I understand it, part of the problem is economic.  By an accident of history, the richest oilfields in the world happened to be under an artificial country run by those whom my officemate (who is an Iraqi refugee) as &#8220;Wahhabi bastards&#8221;.  So part of the problem is that the more moderate and liberal Muslims aren&#8217;t as rich or powerful as the fundamentalists.</p>
<p>(Islam has a great tradition of scholarship, jurisprudence and scientific enquiry.  By comparison, Wahhabism was founded by, in the words of said officemate &#8220;some guy who climbed off the back of a camel&#8221;.  I nearly did a spit take when he used that phrase.  Apparently in the Middle East they have no turnip trucks.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
