To: Neocon who wrote (54715 ) 8/16/2002 3:10:10 PM From: Lane3 Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486 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. Yes, I know that. Were it not for that, I would not keep engaging you on this subject. You seem quite reasonable to me.I will say that the turn in my conversation with Karen came over her making out as if it were only smugness and lack of inclusiveness on the part of the religious that caused problems. As I said, smugness and inclusion were not what I had in mind, not at all. You may have inferred that from previous discussions we've had but that's not my point here.I have no idea why you think I have a greater affinity for "not constructive" believers than for "constructive" unbelievers. It's because you say things like this: <<the religious must necessarily prefer a society of one sort, and the secular a different society. >> That looks like a bright line to me. When you take exception to certain more outlandish elements of religiosity, you do so very gently with a tone of small differences among family. With the humanists, while you acknowledge some commonality and demonstrate considerable tolerance, well, they're on the other side of some bright line. The religionists, however misguided they may be in some aspects, are on your side of the bright line. That's the way I read your position.Most religious believers in this country are not fanatical, but mild, in my experience..... On an interpersonal level, that is my experience, as well. It was the tone of the religious right political movement when it came into play that I found disconcerting, not individual religious practitioners or congregations.