Religion

humblebum

(5,881 posts)

70. I would certainly question your grasp of American history and in particular

Fri Apr 20, 2012, 02:04 PM

Apr 2012

your definition of 'absolute' as applied to separation. So then, do you think that the Constitution was the work of a single mind?

If those who signed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had an absolute separation in mind, why did they also install chaplains in the Congress and the military, etc.?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

94 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How can religious moderates be said to enable hateful fundamentalists? [View all] trotsky Apr 2012 OP

I think "enabling" is not the best choice of words longship Apr 2012 #1

I think "enable" is a word that puts a special focus on the problem. trotsky Apr 2012 #3

You have a point, but... longship Apr 2012 #6

I don't see it as meaning "tacit approval." Goblinmonger Apr 2012 #7

Faith is an important issue here longship Apr 2012 #10

No, they definitely are not actively supporting them. trotsky Apr 2012 #8

My bad! longship Apr 2012 #11

About IRS concerns? Or...? n/t trotsky Apr 2012 #19

About why moderates might not be standing up against religion in politics longship Apr 2012 #26

Oh, on that I really can't be sure. trotsky Apr 2012 #27

Perhaps not, but they *are* actively funding them... Act_of_Reparation Apr 2012 #83

I believe that religious moderates can enable hateful fundamentalists, but rhett o rick Apr 2012 #2

You say: trotsky Apr 2012 #4

Plus add to that the sister claim Goblinmonger Apr 2012 #5

Very important point. trotsky Apr 2012 #9

How does having faith enable bad behavior? nm rhett o rick Apr 2012 #14

It's not the act of having faith that enables bad behavior. trotsky Apr 2012 #17

Ermmm.. what? dmallind Apr 2012 #18

Faith can be used to justify bad behavior, I agree. But having faith rhett o rick Apr 2012 #66

I think we have a tail and dog issue here dmallind Apr 2012 #12

It's not just wrong, it's hate speech, and it's stupid. bananas Apr 2012 #13

Now, now, you're not supposed to call beliefs stupid. trotsky Apr 2012 #15

As I pointed out, you can replace "faith" with just about anything bananas Apr 2012 #29

You sure can. Just as you can substitute a pear for an apple in an apple pie. trotsky Apr 2012 #35

No, religious faith doesn't close that off. nt bananas Apr 2012 #37

OK, go convince Fred Phelps he's wrong. trotsky Apr 2012 #39

What piffle dmallind Apr 2012 #16

Wrong. bananas Apr 2012 #30

Modern eugenics, genetic engineering, and ethical re-evaluation bananas Apr 2012 #32

You either didn't read or didn't understand your own "rebuttal". It makes my point perfectly! dmallind Apr 2012 #34

Why do they believe genetic composition of a population can be improved? bananas Apr 2012 #41

........ eqfan592 Apr 2012 #45

Your coin came down on the wrong side I see. Bad luck. dmallind Apr 2012 #53

rofl - the concept of earth was around long before geography as a science. nt bananas Apr 2012 #59

Wow, really??? eqfan592 Apr 2012 #79

Thoroughgoing religious liberalism in no way enables fundamentalism. E_Pluribus_Unitarian Apr 2012 #20

Again, no one is equating the beliefs. trotsky Apr 2012 #23

This is a variation on the assertion in a recent thread that: LTX Apr 2012 #21

No one is saying that religious beliefs are identical. trotsky Apr 2012 #22

But faith is a valid justification for all beliefs, whether religious or not. LTX Apr 2012 #24

I don't think religious faith is a valid justification for any belief. trotsky Apr 2012 #25

Actually, yes. LTX Apr 2012 #31

Great post! Religion does indeed evolve, and believers evolve, too. kwassa Apr 2012 #33

and also use imaginary father figures as a symbol yes dmallind Apr 2012 #36

And I'll add that those made-up sources LTX Apr 2012 #42

That's a gigantic caveat you just tried to tack on innocuously at the end there! trotsky Apr 2012 #43

Not really. LTX Apr 2012 #49

Absolutely dmallind Apr 2012 #55

Of course, I never said they couldn't. So bully for the brilliant dispatch of that straw man. trotsky Apr 2012 #46

Actually, no. trotsky Apr 2012 #38

So give me your definition of faith. LTX Apr 2012 #44

Religious faith. trotsky Apr 2012 #47

It can be a justification for both. LTX Apr 2012 #52

There you go muddling the definitions again. trotsky Apr 2012 #56

Valid point, but taken too far I think dmallind Apr 2012 #57

I agree for the most part with your statement that: LTX Apr 2012 #68

I disagree with this also kwassa Apr 2012 #73

I think thete is a difference rrneck Apr 2012 #28

How you ask? Probably humblebum Apr 2012 #40

"Oh, do elaborate", he said as he put on his wading boots. nt rrneck Apr 2012 #48

What is there to elaborate on? I merely responded with humblebum Apr 2012 #50

Well, you could elaborate on your opinion. eqfan592 Apr 2012 #51

Ah, good. Knee boots are more comfortable. nt rrneck Apr 2012 #54

So given the fact that groups of freethinkers/skeptics/atheists and individuals gave their open humblebum Apr 2012 #58

Except we have this thing called the Constitution. Goblinmonger Apr 2012 #60

I was not aware that the Constitution had any teeth outside of the Unites States, and humblebum Apr 2012 #61

I am talking about what we are doing here. Goblinmonger Apr 2012 #63

You are just kinda throwing out all sorts of straw men humblebum Apr 2012 #64

"limited separation" Goblinmonger Apr 2012 #67

I would certainly question your grasp of American history and in particular humblebum Apr 2012 #70

In short, because you've never heard of organizations like LTX Apr 2012 #84

I've heard about Americans United. Goblinmonger Apr 2012 #87

I see. You don't know the history of LTX Apr 2012 #88

pssst. There used to be and "O" in the acronym, too. Goblinmonger Apr 2012 #89

Right. Which just proves LTX Apr 2012 #91

You are misunderstanding a lot of arguments in this thread Goblinmonger Apr 2012 #92

Oh, I haven't missed the point of thread. LTX Apr 2012 #93

Faith in Constitution... nt tama Apr 2012 #71

Whatever. Goblinmonger Apr 2012 #72

Faith in word games tama Apr 2012 #75

Id didnt work rrneck Apr 2012 #62

Never said it did work. I said "attempted" eradication. nt humblebum Apr 2012 #65

Then don't worry about it. nt rrneck Apr 2012 #69

Christianity has been reforming for two thousand years and continues to reform Leontius Apr 2012 #74

The 1950s called. 2ndAmForComputers Apr 2012 #77

And 20s 30s 40s 60s 70s 80s and today. nt humblebum Apr 2012 #80

Making heavy use of helicopters painted in the color black, I'm sure. 2ndAmForComputers Apr 2012 #76

You called? onager Apr 2012 #78

And that is a vile and bigoted suggestion LeftishBrit Apr 2012 #82

OK, I think it is wrong and here's why. LeftishBrit Apr 2012 #81

I don't believe you understood what the point of the quote was. eqfan592 Apr 2012 #85

+1 nt mr blur Apr 2012 #94

But is isn't that simple when there's money involved Act_of_Reparation Apr 2012 #86

Not exactly. kwassa Apr 2012 #90