excellent point, AAA exactly what i was referring to . when people LIKE the religious influence on policy, it's ok. when they don't , it's "intolerance' here are some political movements with strong (if not predominant) religious influence anti-slavery women's suffrage civil rights anti-death penalty pro-life etc. ever see "dead man walking?" ever read MLK's letters? how about his namesake? Martin Luther? i could cut the irony with a ladle
I support religious freedoms, and belief Pat Robertson and company should be free to exercise those beliefs. However, when they exercise those beliefs in the political arena, in an attempt to get into the lives of others...others who they have no business getting into the lives of....that's where I see the problem. Telling others how to live their life on the basis of a personal view of a religious system, doesn't promote tolerance. I see Pat Robertson as the head on the same coin that Osama Bin Laden is the tail. Both are extremists, fanatics who seek to influence society on the basis of their extremist religious fundamentalist views. Yes, Robertson does his work though non violent means, but their missions are identical as they seek to push their religious beliefs on the lives of others.
way to evade the point, zzzz here is what you said that i responded to "Religion doesn't promote freedom in this world, Judeo/Christian/Islam promotes freedom in the afterlife, and a bunch of social rules that restrict personal freedoms in this life" "The deeply religious folks who were/are at the forefront of human rights for all, were/are not using the Bible or other religious doctrine to make their arguments....." i showed how the first statement was arguable, and the second statement was DEMONSTRABLY false. and you backpedaled/evaded, and brought up pat robertson can you SMELL the strawmen? you made the above statements. i refuted #2. and you ran away from it.
care to respond to #2. you made the claim, and now you run from it. because i suspect you realize it was false. but in a kneejerk fashion, you introduced it to try to defend your point, which is rapidly fading as you realize it was false. hth
Not evading the point at all. So you didn't get the point I was making. I can see that, obviously.... MLK didn't restrict himself to a fundamentalist view of the Bible to spearhead the civil rights movement. He took the message of his personal beliefs, and broadened it to a secular argument for expanding the rights of all...not just blacks. That is why he had such strong support from people of a variety of religious beliefs, colors, cultures, gender, etc. He appealed to the Universal principle of freedom, not a restrictive fundamentalism that curbed human rights.
Running from nothing. I differentiate from those who have stong personal beliefs (religious or not) yet make their case and argument on the basis of secular reasoning. King's reasoning as he expressed his message was secular, as was his message actually. That's is why it was embraced and supported by such a diverse group, and attacked by a homogenous group of right wingers.
you are still backpedaling, changing the argument and using strawmen (cause you made a false statement that you are too cowardly to admit) let's replay... you said" "The deeply religious folks who were/are at the forefront of human rights for all, were/are not using the Bible or other religious doctrine to make their arguments." i showed how that was false, specifically, in the case of MLK, but there are tons of other examples. you evaded, strawmen created, then said "MLK didn't restrict himself to a fundamentalist view of the Bible to spearhead the civil rights movement. He took the message of his personal beliefs, and broadened it to a secular argument for expanding the rights of all...not just blacks. That is why he had such strong support from people of a variety of religious beliefs, colors, cultures, gender, etc" that's great, but that was not your original statement that i refuted see above. it's called "changing the argument" . cause you were wrong how about just admitting. MLK ***did*** "use the bible or other religious doctrine" you initially claimed this was not so. and MLK's PERSONAL BELIEFS were informed/inspired BY RELIGION which refutes your original point you are wrong, and you simply can;'t admit it you have now morphed the argument from "bible or other religious doctrine" into a "fundamentalist view of the bible" (sorry, that was not your original claim). and you are still ignoring the fact that (as supported by his letters, and writing in the case of MLK's "personal beliefs" *your words* that he wanted IMPOSED on others through policy change were INSPIRED and INFORMED by RELIGION (despite your claim to the contrary) intellectualy dishonesty is so boring grow up and address the points YOU made that have since been refuted and that you are now backpedaling from, and trying to change without acknowledging same. the fact is this. when religiously informed policy changes are those that you agree with, they are ok. when you don't agree with them, they aren't that's quite typical, but tangential to the falsehoods that you proclaimed i repeat. the civil rights (and abolition, anti-slavery, anti-death penalty, anti-abortion etc.) movements were inspired by, and in many cases essentially led by people of faith, whose viewpoints were inspired and informed BY THEIR religious beliefs it was and is true in every case i mention. but in the case of those you agree with, that's ok. in the cases of those you don't, you evade evasion noted. backpedaling noted.
No, I am not back peddling. It happens all the time that some people need clarification of a statement, which is apparently what you need, and what I am providing. Apparently you didn't understand my point, so I am giving clarification. I am not responsible for your narrow vision. That is what dialogue is all about, statements then clarification for those who don't get the point. Clarification has been given, previous statements stand. There is nothing to retract. I don't know what you are arguing about anyway, we both agree that MLK was a religious man, that what he did was good. However, he did not make his arguments, arguments that were inclusive in nature....on the basis of religious fundamentalism. His arguments are based on spirituality, which applies to all people on the basis of Universality of life experience and common sense, not a rigid religiosity of say Pat Robertson. Maybe when you read the word religious you hear spiritual, I don't. Major difference between those who are religious in name only and those who are spiritual. In my opinion, MLK was both religious and spiritual....with the priority given to spirituality...not religious dogmas. He did not condemn those of different religious beliefs, he embraced them. Pat Robertson, and his ilk on the other hand are religious but in no way spiritual, as they are divisive in nature, not inclusive. You must be needing to win an argument with all your "back peddling" talk, another sign of the rigidity of the right wing fundamentalist.
"No, I am not back peddling. It happens all the time that some people need clarification of a statement, which is apparently what you need, and what I am providing. " no, it happens all the time that people in support of an ill defined hypothesis/idea/etc. throw out false statements based on no evidence, in alleged support of their biases and prejudices (as u did) and then when called on it, instead of acknowledging their mistake, merely change the argument i have quoted you exactly. i have responded to your false statements and you have now CHANGED them without admitting them the original point remains when you AGREE with religious inspired political movements, then it's ok to have religion in politics. when you don't agree, then it's not that's quite typical and understandable. what is also typical (but not excusable) is promoting falsehoods to promote your pov, and then when called on their falsity denying that you made them you stated what you stated. i quoted it. i can quote you again, but you won't have the intellectual honesty to respond to what YOU claimed. that much is clear
i repeat: here is what u said: "The deeply religious folks who were/are at the forefront of human rights for all, were/are not using the Bible or other religious doctrine to make their arguments." that is demonstrably false, and i have demonstrated how it is false you have yet to admit it is false, and instead now claim that i dont "understand" it. lol. clearly, to use ONE example, MLK ***did*** use the bible and ***did*** use religious doctrine to make his argument and you can't simply aDMIT that, so have instead changed the argument. which is sad, intellectually dishonest, and the refuge of a scoundrel cognitive dissonance hurt too much?