Mole:
I wasn't expecting a kind of Spanish Inquisition.
*******
Me:
Well, you're posting the articles. I don't have to respond to them, I guess, if you don't want me to.

But you must know this is an area of great disagreement.

The question out there is: Should we all be good Ds and get along with (and, btw, get the votes of) our more religious cousins or do we get to speak our minds honestly?
************
Mole:
Attacking all faith as if it is equivalent to fundamentalism is just as unreasonable and suicidal as accepting all faith including fundamentalism as sacrosanct.
******
Me:
My point was not to equate the two branches of religious thought.

My point was that you are insisting that your brand, or a brand that you are more comfortable with, of religious thought is "reasonable" while the other one is not.

Neither is based on logic or reason or science. Both are faith-based.

Pointing out that there are less reasonable people than you, does not mean that your faith-based conclusions are reasonable.

I am suggesting you need a different approach. The information that we should be basing decisions on, say in the area of climate, is not, after all, religious. If everyone on this side of the street agrees that science is a good thing and issues like global warming need to be dealt with through scientific approaches (you're not suggesting we pray for an end to global warming, are you?) then why muddy the waters?

Or is this more about the politics involved? Mouthing the right words so as not to tick off the religious on the left?

Let's just be clear about it. Let's not insist that one brand of religion is "reasonable." Let's admit that none of them are. They don't have to be. But they may have their uses. Political, personal, whatever.

Nance