Politics, Economics, and Religion


Politics, Economics, and Religion

Religion has so many connections to political and economic beliefs, there needs to be a place to identify linkages, problems, goals, options, action plans and evaluation criteria.  

Members: 108
Latest Activity: 4 hours ago

What is the purpose of life?

An eternal question, what is the purpose of life?, occupied philosophers’ thoughts throughout history. Stone pictographs reveal even primitive peoples reflected on this query. Each one has the capacity to define his or her personal thinking about politics, economics and religion.

Discussion Forum

Legalize Democracy – Move to Amend Documentary

Started by Loren Miller 4 hours ago. 0 Replies

Citizens United and McCutcheon are, without doubt, two of the most damaging decisions ever made by the United States Supreme Court, because they empowered the mega-rich of the US to effectively buy elections and access to the political process. …Continue

Tags: oligarchy, plutocracy, McCutcheon, Citizens United, Move to Amend

TIPP - an EU push for massive tar sand crude imports

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner 16 hours ago. 0 Replies

The proposed TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the Atlantic nations version of TPP, will foster runaway climate change. The European Union wants unfettered imports of U.S. crude…Continue

Tags: TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

TPP - what's been leaked

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Nov 6. 6 Replies

Public Citizen warns of known dangers hidden in the Trans Pacific Partnership. Even with the extreme secrecy, we know enough, due to partial leaks of the secret text, to be very afraid. For instance, we know the TPP would:Lower U.S. wages by…Continue

Tags: corporate tribunals, overcharging for medication, outsourcing US jobs, food and safety threats, TPP

Kevin Kruse on How Corporate America Created Christian America (YouTube)

Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by Joan Denoo Oct 23. 8 Replies

It isn't very often that something goes upside my head with the kind of impact that happened yesterday afternoon, when the 38th Annual Convention of the Freedom From Religion Foundation had as one of its guest speakers Kevin M. Kruse.  Mr. Kruse is…Continue

Tags: One Nation Under God, Kevin Kruse

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Politics, Economics, and Religion to add comments!

Comment by Joan Denoo on September 19, 2012 at 2:08am

Greg, I like what you said because I know it is true, people turn away from strident voices, whether in volume or ALL CAPS. You have always been a strong supporter of my efforts to increase public awareness of serious issues. 

That said, being calm, reasonable, gentle all need to happen, but for those of us who have walked the path out of sick thinking and trying to flourish as fully human, we noisy ones have a place in struggles for human rights.
Martin Luther King, Jr. had a soft voice that stressed peace, but behind him were the more militant one who revealed the numbers and intensity of anger and who demanded justice. 

Gandhi spoke in soft tones and temperament, but behind him were hundreds, if not thousands, of rebellious, angry crowds demanding to be heard. 

If people who suffer under the yoke of oppression and domination ask for permission to speak, or seek approval in what they say, nothing changes. How long did slavery last in this country? and racial discrimination? and how long have women had to struggle with bearing children and trying to figure out how to feed, house, and clothe them. 

Not all men are bad and irresponsible, thankfully; but all conceived children have a father, whether he intended to be a father or not. 

Greg, I just want to be sure you realize how helpful you have been for me over the months, maybe years, and I appreciate you greatly. 

Comment by Joan Denoo on September 19, 2012 at 1:33am

Yes, Robert, I am intolerant of intolerable beliefs. No reason for me to dodge that bullet. You probably haven't read some of my earlier stuff, but let me give you just one example. After working with battered children and women, and hearing the stories of hundreds through various jobs, I began to hear a theme: "yield, pray, obey, turn the other cheek, love him to the lord, crucify yourself daily in imitation of the crucified christ and rejoice in your crucifixion." I call that the "Passive Gospel". Faced with challenges of family violence, many women and children have turned to the church community for help and the most common theme they hear is the Passive Gospel. It is sick, dysfunctional, harmful and leaves scars far too deep to understand how seriously they have been hurt until experiencing a lot of pain, guilt, shame and anguish. Why not just stop it at the source and call those dreadful words stupid, ignorant, and unnecessarily harmful. 

Do ALL religious believe such silly nonsense? I don't know, I don't hear anyone objecting to them even when they come from the pulpit and lectern. 

One nice thing about having a reputation of an angry old woman, I don't have to play games or pretend to be something that I am not. 

Comment by Plinius on September 19, 2012 at 1:21am

Nobody is pro abortion - pro choice, yes.   I was an unwanted child and decided at an early age that I wouldn't force another person to go through childhood. And I made sure of it too, got a sterilization before I was 30 and never regretted my decision. I'm not bad or worthless, but rather heavily scarred by hypocritical fundie parents. The best thing we can do is teach the children everything about sex, children, the ways to prevent pregnancy and all about life. They'll work it out for themselves. 

Comment by Joan Denoo on September 19, 2012 at 1:00am

Robert, You make sound and rational statements if your concern is only for the unborn child/with potential to grow to be a man or woman. That is one point I am trying to convey.
1. Why should each and every pregnant woman be expected to sacrifice herself for the life of her unborn child without consideration of the price she pays. I would not/could not abort a child, whether at the moment of conception or at the moment of birth, but what I decide is my right and that responsibility resides in me. I cannot make that decision for another woman. I don't know her mental state, or her physical state, for that matter. To expect a woman to make a decision because someone else has a belief makes no sense to me. Each person is entitled to her/his beliefs, not all beliefs are equal, and no one is required to respect the beliefs of others. Beliefs are standpoint specific; one person believes one thing and another a different one. It is not like gravity, a natural law of nature. (Thanks Sk8eycat for Shaw's quote.) 

In primitive cultures, whether a woman carries pregnancy to term is often decided by the needs of the tribe. If there is enough food for another life, the pregnancy goes to term; if there is not enough food, the pregnancy is ended, without consulting the mother. 

In China, with incredible overcrowding, a woman is allowed only one child. If the 1st child is a female, it often is killed, making possible for another child who could be a male. If a woman has two children or more, she loses her rights to access to benefits provided by the state. I talked to many Chinese women in China who had been caught up in that terrible dilemma, and you know what, women that I talked to agreed with the law. Well, if that is what they want, so be it. However, desperate times require desperate thinking. It depends on where you stand on an issue and one standpoint is not right for a person from a different standpoint. 

As to my over-generalizing about christians, you are absolutely correct. I over-generalize. I do so when a fundamentalist christian makes some ridiculous statement, such as the Earth is 6,000 years old, and a rational person does not stand up and say, "Wait a minute, that is not true!" Not all christians are uneducated, but all christians seem to think the old bromide, my religion, right or wrong; or my country, right or wrong; or my family, right or wrong. Such devotion to religion or patriotism or family loyalty is bigoted. By that, I mean,   "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."

Confession time, I am a bigot. I make no apologies for being obstinate and intolerant of beliefs that interfere with evidence. When a person wants to bring creationism or intelligent design into a science classroom, I object, and loudly. If there are those who believe in a god or allah or yahweh or whatever the name, and know that evidence does not support that claim, yet remains silent, I find that more intolerable than a person who loudly claims creationism. Silence implies agreement. 

Have you ever heard a christian confront another christian who believes in spirits and devils and angels and heaven and hell? Silence tells me all I need to know about a person. 

I respect your willingness to debate, Robert, and enjoy the challenge,.

Comment by Steph S. on September 18, 2012 at 10:30pm

Just reading all the posts here.

Hope everyone is doing well today.

Comment by sk8eycat on September 18, 2012 at 8:47pm

Change the subject for a while, okay?

Comment by Loren Miller on September 18, 2012 at 8:35pm

"Life begins at conception."

Sure, right ... even if that life is that of an anencephalic embryo ... or a fused twin ... or a chimera or some other description?  How detectable is that to some country doctor without advanced equipment, say in a rural area, without easy access to the kind of facilities some but not all US citizens enjoy?

The process of creating human life is a gauntlet, a 40-week stretch of too many kinds of challenges, dangers and biological minefields.  It's estimated that 40-50% of all fertilized eggs get flushed out with the next menses, and that something like 5-7 percent of pregnancies don't survive the first trimester, not to mention other potential affectations of genetic and other sources.  Yet mankind has survived to this point, and indeed, is beginning to spread beyond this planet's ability to sustain its quickly increasing numbers.

There is no single metric I am aware of which would say, past this point, the gestating being is fully HUMAN, not even at 40 weeks, without the sophistication of modern medicine.  That sophistication is available to many, but hardly all.  Someone ... I DARE you ... try to legislate the dynamics of a pregnancy so that all those who can survive will, and even then, what of the choice of the mother?

I have said this before and will repeat: it is women who bear this responsibility.  They deserve the right to be trusted with the contents of their own bodies FIRST.  The men who may have participated in that process may deserve input, but it remains the woman's body FIRST.

As was said some time back: Trust Women.

Comment by sk8eycat on September 18, 2012 at 7:52pm

The people I have a problem with are the ones who want it written into our laws that "life begins at conception."  How can they tell?  It takes up to 8 days after an ovum is fertilized for it to reach the uterus and implant itself there.  All that while the cells are dividing.  And it's estimated that more than 50 percent of all fertilized eggs fail to attach at all.

So are they human at that stage, or what?

Comment by Loren Miller on September 18, 2012 at 5:16pm

Robert, from the outset, I said that you were entitled to your views and practice them as you see fit, just as I have mine.  I don't presume to tell someone else that they have to run their life according to my rulebook.  I don't have that right.  Neither do you.

Comment by Robert Brown on September 18, 2012 at 5:01pm

One other thing for Loren and even booklover

I thought I should include the definition of a bigot here.  I do have strong opinions, but it seems that my views are more flexible than are yours.

Bing Dictionary
intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service