Imperfection

[kentauros]

This is in relation to an observation I've had for those intent on countering anything religious. That is, whenever anything positive is reported on a religion (usually with regards to the Pope or the RCC) the detractors must point out that because their agenda/issue is not addressed or supported, then no amount of positive action and progress can outweigh their issue. The Pope/RCC/whomever/whatever thus becomes 100% negative and should be destroyed/removed/denounced.

Basically, it seems that they are wanting a perfect institution or a perfect human, and if any flaw is represented by the same, then there can be zero support.

No institution or person is perfect, not even the Democratic Party. And yet, most of us here are members of that institution. Does that then mean we're also all hypocrites? From the logic used by our detractors here, the answer should be 'yes.' But you won't find too many around here supporting that. It's okay to call out for a perfect religion and/or religious institute, but not okay to call for perfection in our common interest of democratic governship.

I think most of us will recognize and admit that our beliefs aren't perfect. Why should we then tolerate being called hypocrites (or worse) by those fellow members of an imperfect union of like-minded Democratic individuals?

I'm not advocating turning around and calling them out as hypocrites. But I do think we should at least point out the fact of no perfect institutes or humans, and that the seeming expectation of that just because their particular issue isn't first-priority is illogical and thoroughly unreasonable.

[TexasProgresive]

1. God preserve us from single issue people.

That includes in politics as well as religion or non-religion.

[kentauros]

2. I hate to admit it,

but in my head I've started calling some of them here "Single Issue Liberals" because no matter what the thread topic, they are there to post their single-issue in reference to the OP.

[Cleita]

3. I have encountered this and have been told, repeatedly by some of these

members, that I should be banned from the website because I have tried to correct misinformation against religions that appears to come from bigotry, especially about Catholics, and not real concern. I personally bow to no ones' gods except my own and I support no religious institutions. However, I will always defend any one unjustly accused of some affront if it's not true.

[hrmjustin]

4. I think most understand that members stay in these organizations to change it from within.

Some however are not willing to listen and will use any excuse to bash the DU religious.

[okasha]

5. If I typed here what I've started to call some of these people in my head, the circuits would fry.

Your analogy to the Democratic Party is a good one, especially when it comes to what the institution was, rather than what it is.

You and I are both Texans. We know that 50 years ago the Texas Democratic Party in this state was entrenched, conservative, deeply corrupt and not infrequently violent. South Texas was ruled by the Democratic patron system, an essentially feudal structure as bad as anything in the Deep South. War on Poverty funds went into the coffers of men who were already millionaires. Prospective opposition candidates were beaten on the street in broad daylight; sometimes their properties were burned. One man's printing press was confiscated by sherriff's deputies. It wasn't until the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts in the 60's that the Party began to change.

That's our history. Should we disavow the Democratic Party now because of what it was, or shall we hold to it because of what it now is?

The answer's pretty clear, isn't it?

[el_bryanto]

6. The worst version of this

There's a a few posters who refuses to give religion any credit for any social change that could be accomplished without religion - in other words in order for religion to take credit for any social change or benefit it has to be something that only religion could possibly do.

Anything negative a religion does, on the other hand, is a unique feature of that religion, and proof that it should be abandoned by decent people. This is an interesting version of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

That said, the more reasonable argument is simply that a religion that relies on supernatural authority, well that supernatural authority can change it's mind and since you can't argue with it logically you are trapped. In other words, today I believe that God wants me to be kind and gentle, but tomorrow I might believe God wants me to go around kicking dogs. That I can understand; I don't agree with the argument, but at least it doesn't seem crafted to screw religions either way.

Bryant

[rug]

7. The same ones who squeal the loudest when criticized.