Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (54713)	8/16/2002 10:13:26 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

This is the post that changed the tenor of the conversation: Message 17877025 I have no idea why you think I have a greater affinity for "not constructive" believers than for "constructive" unbelievers. I have been just as prone, over the years, to argue against the idea of Total Depravity, and try to argue a benign form of the doctrine of Original Sin, or to argue against biblical literalism, and try to argue a less obtuse form of respect for Scripture, as I have been to argue against atheism. What arguments ensue are determined by my interlocutors. I got into a big fight with a friend of mine on the Bush thread for taking a benign view of homosexuality, and proposing a form of civil union that would consolidate those things (like power of attorney) that were obtainable separately among special friends. I have argued against the doctrine of election (that God arbitrarily chose some people to be saved), and expressed my doubts about Vicarious Atonement on this thread. I have agreed with you that there should be somewhat more sensitivity to seculars, especially on the part of politicians, and that religion ought not to be a qualification for office. I have affirmed over and over again that it is not necessary to be religious in order to be moral, and that morality is more a matter of reason than revelation. The fact that I have taken a dim view of using the Establishment Clause to thwart the majority in continuing what I consider innocuous practices should be looked at more as a political and sociological position than as a religious one. Anyway, one can team with the humanists to combat the negatives aspects of religion only to the extent that those elements are pretty clearly fanatical. Otherwise, one needs common ground to discuss things with people of faith, which pretty much leaves the secular out of it. I have said many times over the years that I consider the threat from the Religious Right to be exaggerated. If I had the same fear of virtual theocracy that you do, we might be on the same wavelength. But I do not. Most religious believers in this country are not fanatical, but mild, in my experience.....